Burgundy Burner Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Well according to Greta and O'Reilly, Cameron had three sources who heard these statements by Palin directly.It was three sources, not one or singular. It was three. Here's the link which you obviously neglected to click on earlier in the thread. See you in hell. From Heaven. When I go to church on Sunday, I'll be sure to tell the minister that you are the one who decides who goes to heaven and hell on judgment day. Again, Cameron cited one source in his original story and the next morning it became "insiders". So which is it? I'll trust Sen. McCain on this one, not Cameron's "source". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 In one year, nobody will remember Governor Palin Lets all just move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 keeastman with the pwnage!! Time to go back to flirting with Lori. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Let's take this logic a bit further...McCain on Leno Tuesday night. He dismissed the report and said that when you have many advisors, one person can get mad or upset when you lose - and a finger or two is pointed. He simply dismissed it as one rogue person and that things like this will happen. He had nothing but praise for Gov. Palin. Sen. McCain as a source - kind of unique, eh? Yeah, because McCain is going to completely undermine the person that he picked to be the Vice President of the United States and as such show that he failed to properly vet his running mate before choosing her. Yeah, nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 pretty muchSo if Fox News reports something negative about a democrat candidate, they're FAUX news. But if they report something negative about a republican candidate, then they are the real deal. Must be nice to throw common sense to the wayside and just pick and choose which story is legit depending on who it hits on. When the Republican Party says something bad about a Democrat, they have a pretty clear motive to lie. When the Republican Party says something bad about a Republican . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 So if Fox News reports something negative about a democrat candidate, they're FAUX news. But if they report something negative about a republican candidate, then they are the real deal. Must be nice to throw common sense to the wayside and just pick and choose which story is legit depending on who it hits on. Whatever keeastman, if you can't understand that a damning news story about a GOP politician has more credibility when it comes from a news source that is widely known to be soft on the GOP then I can't help you. My guess is that if MSNBC broke a story that made Obama look like an idiot with confidential sources that would have a bit more credibility than if Faux broke the same story with the same sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Whatever keeastman, if you can't understand that a damning news story about a GOP politician has more credibility when it comes from a news source that is widely known to be soft on the GOP then I can't help you. My guess is that if MSNBC broke a story that made Obama look like an idiot with confidential sources that would have a bit more credibility than if Faux broke the same story with the same sources. testy, testy. seems like you cant understand that if you claim something against barack is garbage then you need to accept that the other side will do the same thing and expect the same respect that you do. who cares where it is from? sounds like you are still holding on to this straw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I'm sure you can contact FOX for transcripts of Tuesday night's show. She said these things never happened and referenced her access to the campaign. Oh, so I'm supposed to take the word of a person who didn't receive the information from a confidential source that something didn't happen? How does that even make sense? You're telling me that its not true because Van Susteren didn't get the story and she was there a lot? So what if she was there, that doesn't mean she had 100% open access to Palin throughout the campaign, and from Cameron's report the stuff happened when ther press wasn't around. Sorry, but that's a weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 testy, testy. seems like you cant understand that if you claim something against barack is garbage then you need to accept that the other side will do the same thing and expect the same respect that you do. who cares where it is from? sounds like you are still holding on to this straw Who cares where its from? How does this story being broken by Fox News NOT matter? They have for years been the GOP talking piece and now they break a story that slams one of their own, come on, if that doesn't by itself lend credibility to the story then nothing will. Its like the mafia turning on one of its own. And if someone runs saying that I think the GOP is the mafia then I'll probably puke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 That's an actual quote; there is audio of him saying it.It has already been reported that the Palin Africa thing was not true. But, much like the wardrobe that she did not accept, the liberal media will run with any negative story they can find no matter what. I can't wait until 2012 to say I told you sooooooooo! Liberal media!? OMGness it was Fox News for that broke the story, and it was on the O'Reilly Factor when Cameron broke the story. Yeah, that's the liberal media alright. Holy smokes now I've heard it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Who cares where its from? How does this story being broken by Fox News NOT matter? They have for years been the GOP talking piece and now they break a story that slams one of their own, come on, if that doesn't by itself lend credibility to the story then nothing will. Its like the mafia turning on one of its own. And if someone runs saying that I think the GOP is the mafia then I'll probably puke. so now your whole basis for this is because it is from fox and they are usually so soft on the GOP? seems kind of weak sauce and holding on to a dead argument to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 so now your whole basis for this is because it is from fox and they are usually so soft on the GOP? seems kind of weak sauce and holding on to a dead argument to me. So any reporting that has a confidential source is not true? Dang, guess they should have let Nixon off until the identity of Deep Throat was revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Whatever keeastman, if you can't understand that a damning news story about a GOP politician has more credibility when it comes from a news source that is widely known to be soft on the GOP then I can't help you. My guess is that if MSNBC broke a story that made Obama look like an idiot with confidential sources that would have a bit more credibility than if Faux broke the same story with the same sources. I actually can understand what you are trying to say. What I CAN'T understand is why you continue to hail Fox News as a source of truth in this aspect yet not in any other facet of their reporting. What I CAN'T understand is why you would believe a ludicrous story like this (e.g. a governor truly being clueless as to the continent-status of Africa)...based on an anonymous source...who only can discuss details that involve smearing a candidate. What I CAN'T understand is how you wholly refuse to acknowledge that the type of spiteful venom contained in the "information" from the "anonymous source," intended only to degrade a person, absolutely reaks of a pissed off staffer trying to take a low jab at Palin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 So any reporting that has a confidential source is not true?Dang, guess they should have let Nixon off until the identity of Deep Throat was revealed. or you should just let it go and move on. your 2 arguments are 1) anonymous source and 2) a news channel that is typically soft on the GOP. there is no meat to your stance man. you are just going back and forth saying the same thing over and over and nobody is buying it as a legit argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 So any reporting that has a confidential source is not true?Dang, guess they should have let Nixon off until the identity of Deep Throat was revealed. Dang, ya think maybe if Deep Throat was talking about how Nixon was too stupid to know Africa was a continent he wouldn't have been taken as seriously? :doh: It's basic grade school behavior. You're ticked off by someone, you strike back. And if you're a real pansy-ass, you strike while your cloaking device is ON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I actually can understand what you are trying to say.What I CAN'T understand is why you continue to hail Fox News as a source of truth in this aspect yet not in any other facet of their reporting. What I CAN'T understand is why you would believe a ludicrous story like this (e.g. a governor truly being clueless as to the continent-status of Africa)...based on an anonymous source...who only can discuss details that involve smearing a candidate. What I CAN'T understand is how you wholly refuse to acknowledge that the type of spiteful venom contained in the "information" from the "anonymous source," intended only to degrade a person, absolutely reaks of a pissed off staffer trying to take a low jab at Palin... QFT....All of a sudden the liberal left is saying how great Fox news is, they are right...but all this time lib's hated fox and talked about how they are a messed up news channel. Very very interesting. Keep at it Keets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 and if you're a real pansy-ass, you strike while your cloaking device is on. roflmbo!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardowling Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 So any reporting that has a confidential source is not true?Dang, guess they should have let Nixon off until the identity of Deep Throat was revealed. I think the source should have the balls and come out in the open, its pretty chick**** if you ask me. What do you have too lose?? The campaign is over. How would you like to be accused of something and not be able to face your accuser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Boy, I sure will be glad when the election's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I actually can understand what you are trying to say.What I CAN'T understand is why you continue to hail Fox News as a source of truth in this aspect yet not in any other facet of their reporting. My question is, what would be the reason they would break this story if they did not think it was true, and did not think that the sources were credible? What I CAN'T understand is why you would believe a ludicrous story like this (e.g. a governor truly being clueless as to the continent-status of Africa)...based on an anonymous source...who only can discuss details that involve smearing a candidate. Again, if it came from Moveon.org or Olberman I'd probably be more apt to dismiss it. If I understood that part correctly it wasn't so much that she didn't know Africa was a continent, but that South Africa was more than just the southern part of Africa, and that's a mistake I can see someone making. What I CAN'T understand is how you wholly refuse to acknowledge that the type of spiteful venom contained in the "information" from the "anonymous source," intended only to degrade a person, absolutely reaks of a pissed off staffer trying to take a low jab at Palin... The problem with your theory is that Fox would have run this story with only one source. What's more is that this information was not revealed to Cameron after the election, it was BEFORE the election that this was revealed to him as off the record until AFTER the election. The whole reason I even mentioned anything after B_B posted the article on page 9 was that the article presented there did not substantiate what he was trying to say, because it was presented that the information about Palin was being retracted which is false, instead the information that was retracted concerned the identity of the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I think the source should have the balls and come out in the open, its pretty chick**** if you ask me. What do you have too lose?? The campaign is over. How would you like to be accused of something and not be able to face your accuser? I'm a pastor, trust me I'm used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 ASF, the only thing I wanted to show from that article is how ridiculous this whole story is and how a source can be so wrong or lie. If we accept the Africa and NAFTA story, then we are saying that we believe a "source" that became "insiders" and then it became a make believe character that fooled MSNBC. Somewhere, the tooth fairy is probably a source too. Murphy Brown will have more about it tomorrow, I'm sure. Let's see what she says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Boy, I sure will be glad when the election's over. Potential 2012 candidates are heading to Iowa next month (true story). We're just getting started again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 It has already been reported that the Palin Africa thing was not true. But, much like the wardrobe that she did not accept, the liberal media will run with any negative story they can find no matter what. Where has it been reported? I'd like to read that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Here's the simple facts. 1) No one knows for sure if the "Africa" story is true. We have no way of confirming either way. 2) Burgundy Burner's effort to get a "gotcha" against the Libs fails because he didn't read his link closely enough. 3) We still don't know if the "Africa" story is true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.