Drudge is as reliable as any of the MSM
Posted By: rr on 2005-12-21
In Reply to: Drudge - Lurker
He routinely/daily posts articles leaning both ways, but when someone doesn't tout the liberal mantra verbatim then you write them off. You don't want anything to do with fair and balanced reporting do you?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.
So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.
If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.
As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.
I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.
As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.
So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.
I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.
Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.
On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.
The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.
I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.
So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
Drudge
Drudge is usually not accepted as a reliable source by the mainstream. I have heard Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Bob Schiffer, even Tyler Carlson say, now this is paraphrasing but just the same, we don't quote Drudge on this program because of the extreme bias. This would be like me asking you to accept Al Franken's take on something or even, drum roll.....horror of horrors...gather up your children....duct tape your house....YIKES, EGAD...Michael Moore !!!!!! This liberal skips over anything that uses Drudge as its source. There are many on the right who are credible; don't need this Drudge hack.
Drudge.com
It was on drudge yesterday. The article had a link inside (see below) that showed US involvement in securing the rally.
Oh, please, Drudge is as stupid
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
Right, because they are so much more reliable.
Note sarcasm.
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
reliable source for this please. nm
.
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? n/m
As far as I know it is a reliable source, but not
totally. At least, so I guess, it is controlled for neutrality, whereas other sources just smell partisan.
Factcheck not reliable and b/c is forged
Look at it yourself and then read what the experts say.
Finding reliable news sm
If you want facts, the best place is the internet and alternative news sites. Those that rely on the mainstream news for information are not well-informed. The only news I watch on the TV is BBC World.
Here is a good article on the subject:
The Difficulty in Being an Uninformed American.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/010909Roberts2.shtml
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
Reliable link? More fear mongering I think. You...sm
republicans will believe anything!
The b/c issue - Stating factcheck as a reliable source
Since they are all one in the same. Factcheck is not an independent source.
As we can see, there is no reliable source. Twisted, misleading passages out of context
rasberries
|
