Jump to content

Ready for a laugh??? According to Scout "anonymous sources" have awesome credibility.....How can you judge anyone's credibility if you don't know who they are? Liberalism 2020


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 670
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

8 minutes ago, Scout said: The four anonymous sources have the awesome credibility of The Atlantic behind them.   The ten WH ANONYMOUS sources have NO ONE backing them.

So how do you know they have awesome credibility...?   And as of this morning there's no evidence that anyone from the Atlantic even talked to them....

If that doesn't work a bleach enema will surely do the trick. 

Posted Images

it depends obviously most anonymous sources are in no way credible .You have a valid point here. But that isn't the case . It a reliable anonymous source , oh wait, yeah i see the problem . but heres why I take this seriously, its too crazy to be made up far too outrageous, so i think it has to be true . And what is also true is how scared people are of trump and his gang, but yeah the anonymity is problematic but i believe its to outrageous to be a lie

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

it depends obviously most anonymous sources are in no way credible .You have a valid point here. But that isn't the case . It a reliable anonymous source , oh wait, yeah i see the problem . but heres why I take this seriously, its too crazy to be made up far too outrageous, so i think it has to be true . And what is also true is how scared people are of trump and his gang, but yeah the anonymity is problematic but i believe its to outrageous to be a lie

It's too crazy to be made up?

The bigger the lie the more someone will believe it...

 

We've had about a dozen people say they were there and it never happened

And we have four anonymous sources that say it did

 

The difference is of course we have no idea who these "anonymous sources" are and why they never said anything..

And why they waited 2 years and still won't come out of the shadows...

 

And considering some of the BS about collusion, pee tapes and Kavanaugh having rape parties I think we know where this is going

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, guilluamezenz said:

it depends obviously most anonymous sources are in no way credible .

 

I don't think this is true.

 

I think the anonymous sources of credible journalists are credible, but the anonymous sources that report to FOX are more likely to be something along the lines of janitors and secretaries at NASA who think climate change is fake because it snowed last winter and they saw it with their own eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Z09 said:

The difference is of course we have no idea who these "anonymous sources" are and why they never said anything..

 

Whereas we know why Trump's sources are saying what they're saying-- because they want to keep their jobs or avoid being pummelled by Trump's personal pravda.

 

I would also assume that this is also why the others remain anonymous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Whitemajikman said:

Actually Laurene Jobs owns the majority stake in the Atlantic and is a Democrat mega donor and a rabid anti-Trumpist.

That should say it all....

 

It means they have reasons to go after Trump.

It doesn't mean they need to lie to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 8:12 AM, Z09 said:

It's too crazy to be made up?

The bigger the lie the more someone will believe it...

 

We've had about a dozen people say they were there and it never happened

And we have four anonymous sources that say it did

 

The difference is of course we have no idea who these "anonymous sources" are and why they never said anything..

And why they waited 2 years and still won't come out of the shadows...

 

And considering some of the BS about collusion, pee tapes and Kavanaugh having rape parties I think we know where this is going

he said it he says shit like that every day you know he said it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/7/2020 at 7:09 PM, pmurT said:

 

I am okay with Trump attacking John McCain.

 

Why?  Because I feel that only a bizarre, lunatic feels that it was okay for McCain to keep attacking Trump but then Trump should not say anything back in terms of attacking McCain's personal life.  Trump's entitled to his opinion, specifically, about John McCain who hugely-disrespected Trump while at the same time Trump can show that he loves the military which he oversees and Trump has treated the military greatly while he has overseen it.

 

He's not a politician, so stop expecting him to act like one.  He's going to say aggressive things to his critics who are unfair, at the same time, he's going to protect the heck out of American citizens. Period.

 

 

trump said he only likes people that were not captured, so he doesn't like ANY pow's.

 

 

 

 

go to 5.25

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jerra- said:

 

 

words of someone who can't win the argument

 

haha

When have you ever presented an argument? Trumps treatment of veterans is beyond reproach. 
 

You fucking drones are trying to take his beef with McCain as some kind of attack on POW’s or veterans. It’s a lie. It’s intellectual dishonesty and worse yet, you’re not even original. Just parroting talking points like a mindless drone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 7:12 AM, Z09 said:

It's too crazy to be made up?

The bigger the lie the more someone will believe it...

 

We've had about a dozen people say they were there and it never happened

And we have four anonymous sources that say it did

 

The difference is of course we have no idea who these "anonymous sources" are and why they never said anything..

And why they waited 2 years and still won't come out of the shadows...

 

And considering some of the BS about collusion, pee tapes and Kavanaugh having rape parties I think we know where this is going

 

 

trump says he hates pow's-- haha 

 

watch 5.25

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Str8tEdge said:

I wonder is these drones like @Kel or @jerra-actually think anyone else is dumb enough to believe their propaganda? 

 

 

what propaganda????

 

this is trump's own words!

 

if anyone believes in propaganda, it is the republican party!!!!

 

5.25 trump says he doesn't like pow's

 

 

wa

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jerra- said:

 

 

what propaganda????

 

this is trump's own words!

 

if anyone believes in propaganda, it is the republican party!!!!

 

5.25 trump says he doesn't like pow's

 

 

wa

It’s trash, kid. Grow up. You’re the 2nd dumbest poster on the board right behind @Scout

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 2:14 PM, Z09 said:
 Scout said:

The four anonymous sources have the awesome

credibility of The Atlantic behind them.

 

We have learned from a report published by CNN that according to a unnamed retired public information officer (formerly stationed at the Pentagon) whose opinions are said to be respected by all his colleagues has knowledge of a scandalize situation and he is close to the source. He has contacted the New York Times and would only speak off the record fearing for his personal safety. The official named as the source is described as expert in these matters and who has allegedly seen copies of the email exchanges that contain undisclosed information which surely had politics at its core. 

 

We are not exactly certain what the circumstances are which would give him the necessary access to see them. The emails appeared to purportedly show that he was cooperating with the investigation...but to describe the matter in simple terms he has led us to nothing other than rumors, rambling monologues and inaudible secretly made recordings. 

 

The latest revelation in addition to a blistering report leaked to MSNBC has caught the attention of the FBI which depicts a ever-expanding laundry list of accusations that has turned up nothing of great significance.  

 

A spokesperson for a implicated acquaintance's denied the accusation with the released of a statement by his lawyer accommodated with a photo of a intoxicated married subject seen in the arms of another woman. This has ignited a new round of seemingly and somewhat demeaning opinions to all concerned. The effect of this has sent ripples thru the CYA (a secret Government agency within the CIA-which has not been confirmed except by the lowest levels inside the Beltway)

 

Another confidential leak claims fact checker and lawyers have been kept busy closely monitoring the situation but did not comment beyond that. However a top administrator (whose identity we have decided to keep unnamed for fear of retaliation) was quoted as saying the suspected material is problematic in the sense of intense obvious impartiality. In addition while expressing concern that story seems too perfect and warned about instantly believing facts since the subtext was clear retaliation toward anyone in disagreement.

 

Shortly after this he (the top administrator) was quick to walk back his statement after he learned a anonymous four star Army General with the highest security clearance possible expressed concern of the validity of the narrative and called it a new level of fake intelligence he has ever read. In addition to the fact that copyrighted material was used to hide the truth...the General said they have made a bad choice in doing so since the information could not be used in a court of law even if found out to be true.

 

Reached at his summer home in a undisclosed location the General said he was speaking with a US Navy Admiral intelligence officer (who also has the highest security clearance possible) who told him all of this was stumbled upon by accident and now that it is out in the open it is easy to see what has been going on. The Admiral went on to say rumors about this situation have been circulating for well over a decade but it is unclear why they were not persuaded.

 

All of this controversy is surely going to effect some longtime careers according to various articles posted within the last week....with a top news agency as the original information supplier. Another Washington based news site said the same thing about the long term implications. 

 

In a recent interview Harry Stocks the head spokesman for The Pew Research Center pointed out The Washington Post claims but does supply any evidence to back up thier continual ambiguous headlines...which is well known tactic of thiers to spread disinformation in support of the agenda. A good example of this is the on going story where they cite unspecific people who may or may not be telling the truth and than make up a story around their statements. These reports are often engineered to appeal to one's emotions

 

We have reached out to the New York Times management for a comment on the allegations but despite a weeks wait they did respond to our request.  As of this writing we are not aware of any attempt both publicly and privately for them to clarify or deny all of this and question if the did their research. And even more so we question thier journalistic integrity.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jerra- said:

If anyone believes in propaganda, it is the republican party!!!!

 

ultraliberals on President Clintons infidelity: That is between him and his wife.

 

ultraliberals on President Trumps infidelity's: It wasn't the first time Trump has been in the center of a public cheating scandal.

 

 

 

i did not have sex with that woman.... - Cheezburger - Funny Memes | Funny  Pictures
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Old Mack said:

 

ultraliberals on President Clintons infidelity: That is between him and his wife.

 

ultraliberals on President Trumps infidelity's: It wasn't the first time Trump has been in the center of a public cheating scandal.

 

 

 

i did not have sex with that woman.... - Cheezburger - Funny Memes | Funny  Pictures

 

 

switch and bait, bait and switch.

 

I am talking about the president saying he doesn't like captured american soldiers, and somehow this is turned into a thing about adultery.

 

you cannot and will not admit trump is too unpatriotic to be potus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jerra- said:

 

 

switch and bait, bait and switch.

 

I am talking about the president saying he doesn't like captured american soldiers, and somehow this is turned into a thing about adultery.

 

you cannot and will not admit trump is too unpatriotic to be potus.

He’s unpatriotic lol.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jerra- said:

 

 

trump said he only likes people that were not captured, so he doesn't like ANY pow's.

 

 

 

 

go to 5.25

 

I know I know, you are a Dem, so you hate being honest ---because you know you have to be deceitful in order to defeat President Trump.  So you took his words out of context here, where you know he was referring to the disrespectful nasty John McCain exclusively and not every person who's ever been a POW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...