Democrat Presidential Hopeful Obama's Muslim Background

[Daisy]

What's really pathetic is for you to reference an article written 5 days after this thread was begun and pretend it is information the rest of us should have already had.

So you had 5 days to retract and didn't - pathetic much? You declared that Obama had hidden his past based on this Insight article (which used totally unattributed sources - red flag) and hyped on Fox. You never questioned the truth of it; you just declared him guilty.

As you now declare Clinton guilty the same flimsy "evidence" that has already proven unreliable.

Wrong.

No, he is correct. You declared you're sticking to the allegation although it is without any proof whatsoever. Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.

The allegation is Insight's.

And what evidence do they provide? Is that a reliable source or has it been confirmed by any one else?

And what exactly is the allegation?

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

That anonymous "sources" say that anonymous researchers "connected " not to Clinton but the "Clinton camp" did a background check and discovered this terrible secret. The allegation is not that Clinton actually leaked anything, but that "sources" say what turns out to be a "scurrilous lie" (Obama's word) was uncovered.

Who are the sources and what credibility do they have? Who do the "sources" work for?

I tend to agree because it fits the Clinton pattern and Hillary has the most to gain from smearing Obama.

What pattern? Who has Clinton smeared before?

The right has the most to gain by doing the foul deed and blaming Clinton - a twofer smear.

Until someone presents evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with that opinion.

Rumor-mongering, mudslinging, oh what sport for the unscrupulous!

 

[The Galatian]

Sounds like they're launching the swift boats a bit early this time.

 

[carpro]

So you had 5 days to retract and didn't - pathetic much? You declared that Obama had hidden his past based on this Insight article (which used totally unattributed sources - red flag) and hyped on Fox. You never questioned the truth of it; you just declared him guilty.

As you now declare Clinton guilty the same flimsy "evidence" that has already proven unreliable.

No, he is correct. You declared you're sticking to the allegation although it is without any proof whatsoever. Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.

And what evidence do they provide? Is that a reliable source or has it been confirmed by any one else?

And what exactly is the allegation?
That anonymous "sources" say that anonymous researchers "connected " not to Clinton but the "Clinton camp" did a background check and discovered this terrible secret. The allegation is not that Clinton actually leaked anything, but that "sources" say what turns out to be a "scurrilous lie" (Obama's word) was uncovered.

Who are the sources and what credibility do they have? Who do the "sources" work for?

What pattern? Who has Clinton smeared before?

The right has the most to gain by doing the foul deed and blaming Clinton - a twofer smear.

Rumor-mongering, mudslinging, oh what sport for the unscrupulous!

You really need to get a grip, Daisy.:tear:

You seem to be slightly obsessed with me. Please get over it. It's not becoming.

 

[Daisy]

You really need to get a grip, Daisy.:tear:

You seem to be slightly obsessed with me. Please get over it. It's not becoming.

Ah good ole carpro - resort to snarky personal comment instead of addressing the substance of my post, to wit: on what evidence are you basing your smear on Clinton(that she is in any way responsible for the lie against Obama), now that you have dropped your smear against Obama (that he hid his past)?

 

[Alcott]

... Texas has produced America's two most pathetic,...

I'd give New York that cup for Grant and F.Roosevelt.

 

[LadyEagle]

Hopefully, this thread will get back on topic so it won't have to be closed.

 

[Dragoon68]

What has he professed to be in public?

 

[carpro]

Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.

Rumor-mongering, mudslinging, oh what sport for the unscrupulous!

Clinton is a known and proven liar. He is not likely to have changed his unscrupulous ways.

The only thing that saved Monica from be ground into hamburger by the Clinton smear machine was that doggone bluedress.:thumbs:

 

[carpro]

Ah good ole carpro - resort to snarky personal comment

You need to go back and read your own post and then come back and instruct us all about personal comments and attacks.

That's why I urged you to calm down. It was apparent you had at least temporarily lost your grip.

 

[Daisy]

What has he professed to be in public?

Christian (linkie).

Clinton is a known and proven liar. He is not likely to have changed his unscrupulous ways.

The question is about Sen. Clinton and how she has smeared anyone, not whether her husband lied about having sex. Are we pretending not to know that?

The only thing that saved Monica from be ground into hamburger by the Clinton smear machine was that doggone bluedress.:thumbs:

I don't recall Sen. Clinton or her husband smearing Ms. Lewinski. Evidence other than recollection?

You need to go back and read your own post and then come back and instruct us all about personal comments and attacks.

I did read my post and the main part of it was not about you at all, unless you count debunking your accusation and asking for evidence to be about you and not about the topic. The comment about sport was meant for whoever enjoys rumor-mongering and mudslinging; if you take that to be you, well.....

Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.

Wow! what a zinger that was - if you like, I'll rephrase: Clinton denies it, so if anyone continues to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to his character, not hers. Ok, all better now? I apologize for making it personal rather than general.

That's why I urged you to calm down. It was apparent you had at least temporarily lost your grip.

Nonsense, you were trying to goad me as you are again with this - what a surprise! - personal attack.:laugh:

 

[carpro]

The question is about Sen. Clinton and how she has smeared anyone, not whether her husband lied about having sex. Are we pretending not to know that?

If you believe there is a difference in this campaign, you are even more in denial than I thought.

I don't recall Sen. Clinton or her husband smearing Ms. Lewinski. Evidence other than recollection?

The Blue Dress, remember?

I did read my post and the main part of it was not about you at all, unless you count debunking your accusation and asking for evidence to be about you and not about the topic. The comment about sport was meant for whoever enjoys rumor-mongering and mudslinging; if you take that to be you, well.....

Oh, Daisy, you are such a piece of work.:laugh:
You left out the juicy parts.

Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.

Not really. She is entitled to her lies. I'm entitled to my opinion.

Did you really expect her to admit it? Puhleeeeeeeze.

The good part is that you appear to be at least partially back under control. In denial, but partly restrained. I knew you could do it.:applause:

 

[carpro]

Sounds like they're launching the swift boats a bit early this time.

Yep.

It appears the first Hillary submarine attack has occurred. There will be more.

 

[Daisy]

The question is about Sen. Clinton and how she has smeared anyone, not whether her husband lied about having sex. Are we pretending not to know that?

If you believe there is a difference in this campaign, you are a bigger fool than I thought.

Again, the question is about Sen. Clinton and how she smeared anyone. Again, what evidence do you have against her?

I don't recall Sen. Clinton or her husband smearing Ms. Lewinski. Evidence other than recollection?

The Blue Dress, remember?

Ok, what about the Blue Dress was a smear by Sen. Clinton?

I did read my post and the main part of it was not about you at all, unless you count debunking your accusation and asking for evidence to be about you and not about the topic. The comment about sport was meant for whoever enjoys rumor-mongering and mudslinging; if you take that to be you, well.....

Oh, Daisy, you are such a piece of work.:laugh:

You left out the juicy parts.

Quoted you, cute inuendo, but totally devoid of substance.

Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.

Not really. She is entitled to her lies. I'm entitled to my opinion.

Again, what evidence do you have that it is a lie? If none, this smacks of false witness and bad character...

Did you really expect her to admit it? Puhleeeeeeeze

Cute, no substance, evidence?

The good part is that you appear to be at least partially back under control. In denial, but partly restrained. I knew you could do it.

Snarkity-snark.

 

[carpro]

Again, the question is about Sen. Clinton and how she smeared anyone. Again, what evidence do you have against her?

I have Insight and you have a Clinton spokesman. Whatever her campaign investigators do, she is responsible for.

Insight stands by their story. It is just as likely they are telling the truth as it is a thoroughly biased spokesman for Clinton.

Absent hard evidence freom another unbiased source, my opinion rules.:thumbs:

End of subject.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

The real question is why Obama has hid this from the public.

Why? I bet I know...

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
The real question is why Obama has hid this from the public.

Why? I bet I know...

Be very careful! The wrath of Daisy may rain down upon your head.:tonofbricks:

 

[Daisy]

I have Insight and you have a Clinton spokesman. Whatever her campaign investigators do, she is responsible for.

What did Insight, which has been proven unreliable and unprofessional on the main aspect of their story, allege her investigators actually did? Go back and read carefully while trying to distinguish between "sources close to" and her actual investigators. Keep in mind that Insight never provides any evidence that this rumor came from Sen. Clinton's campaign.

Insight stands by their story.

Which story? The part about Obama attending a "madrassa" has been rather thoroughly debunked. If they are standing by this - Fox retracted - in the face of the evidence, that goes to their lack of credibility.

It is just as likely they are telling the truth as it is a thoroughly biased spokesman for Clinton.

Not really, as it is their claim, it is their responsibilty to provide evidence. They already have been wrong about the "madrassa" so that does not bode well for the likeliness of this unevidenced story.

Absent hard evidence freom another unbiased source, my opinion rules.:thumbs:

Lacking evidence period, but certainly your choice.

End of subject.

We shall see.

 

[Daisy]

Why? I bet I know...

'Cause it ain't so?

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

Look, it's simple.

If it's true: He didn't bring it up because it *might* hurt his chances of being elected.

It it's false: He didn't bring it up because it wasn't true, and therefore not an issue.

It's not worth getting any undergarments in a snitch, bunch or otherwise uncomfortable position.

 

[carpro]

Look, it's simple.

If it's true: He didn't bring it up because it *might* hurt his chances of being elected.

It it's false: He didn't bring it up because it wasn't true, and therefore not an issue.

It's not worth getting any undergarments in a snitch, bunch or otherwise uncomfortable position.

You got off light, Joshua. Maybe she's all tuckered out for a while.