Palin's affair with her husband's business partner

Really?

Us magazine?

That’s your source? Okay…

 

Um, actrually no the source is the wife of the man with whom she is accused of having the affair.

Or did you not get that far?

Oh by the way, nice irony there, in a thread basically started by a rumor in the Enquirer. LOL


Oh by the way, is there some place where I can see an approved list of sources? Surely there is a list, right?

 

I can only imagine what people on this board would say if Basso posted an article from the National Enquirer.

Hint: It wouldn't be 'but still shouldn't we investigate this?"

 

Probably the same thing people say when he posts an article from anywhere else.

 

Maybe so. And why is that? Could it be that he posts articles from blogs and other non-credible sources?

 

I hadn't thought of that...I just figured most people here don't like him or what he has to say.

 

Hayes, I just want you to know that I am a big fan of natural boobs. Scarlett, for example, has spectacular natural boobs. Thank goodness, my wife's have remained in their natural state (perhaps not in Scarlett's class, but don't tell her I said that, please!). Angelina has another amazing natural pair, although I don't care for the tats. Yes, Dow Chemical has been harmed by my stubborn attitude, but ask me if I care!

 

It isn't whining and it isn't mock indignation. If this story was about Obama people on this bbs would be freaking out and flaming the thread starter. The source of your information DOES matter, DD. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this one.

 

Well, you know that you can be a fan of both, right? Understandably your preference skews to the natural end of things, and rightly so. But don't turn into a boobamist.

 

t_j???

 

Angelina's aren't natural.

 

It's strange that you admit the source is crap and then try to defend it (lewinsky, edwards). Either it is a credible source or it is not. I think we all agree it is not. Therefore to cite it and give credibility to the story is just plain silly.

So many things - yes, people recognize it is crap. Since it is crap we shouldn't be spending time debating the merits of the claim, right? Otherwise you're saying the National Enquirer is news and we should act as IF it were a credible source, which even you acknowledge it isn't.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS

Fair game for what? That's the question. Fair game for the National Enquirer to be taken seriously? That's just plain dumb. Fair for criticism? Yes. Fair for her decisions to come under a microscope? Yes. Fair to give credence to a source you admitted is "crap?" No. "All is fair" means you're just like Karl Rove - anything goes even if it should have no credibility, is from a "crap" source, or hell - even straight out made up out of thin air. No thanks.

 

So you will post all the Enquirer articles that attack Obama from now on correct?

 

You can't have it both ways. If you're saying that the National Enquirer should be taken as a credible source then say it. Don't say they are both crap and reliable. They may have been correct a couple of times but as pointed out earlier by someone, their propensity to print crap far outweighs their correct results. It's like saying a batter with a .086 average is a credible hitting threat.

As far as the 'she should get the same treatment' line, what is your point? The existence of the National Enquirer story shows that she is, indeed, being targeted by TABLOIDS that have a long history of MAKING UP STORIES. That doesn't mean you should start threads with sources like the NATIONAL ENQUIRER which you admit is CRAP and has no credibility unless you're also going to start threads about Obama and everyone else from sources that noone finds credible. Even then you're only destroying your own credibility by insisting these unsubstantiated stories from non-credible sources are something worth taking seriously. They aren't.

You are confusing the treatment she SHOULD get with the treatment she IS getting.