I think it's important for people to utilize credible sources.

[Cali_Democrat]

Somebody who thinks the CIA was behind the Boston bombing is not a credible source.

P.S.

The US government did not assassinate Michael Hastings by remotely taking control of his car and deliberately crashing it.

Thank you for your time and have a great weekend!

[zappaman]

1. CTers don't care about sources

I have seen them here link to hate sites just because the author agreed with whatever kooky theory they have.

And yes, citing a guy for anything who thinks the CIA was behind the bombing in Boston is ridiculous.

[Squinch]

2. Did some government agency put you up to this?

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Yup

My post proves I'm a paid authoritarian.

[REP]

3. Also important for people to know how things work

Like cars. And how car "hacking" is done (with a physical device plugged into the car - not by remote death-dealing magic).

I gues it could be summed up with RTFM FFS.

(I agree with you)

[one_voice]

4. seems like we're

coo-coo for cocoa puffs underground.

I'm waiting for someone to post some 9/11 truther shit and someone actually defending it as legit and mainstream. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff I'm seeing.

[zappaman]

5. You need to visit CREATIVE SPECULATION

Take a look around there.
Don't forget your hat.

[longship]

6. You should have seen things here it was kicked into the dungeon.

[zappaman]

7. This might be my favorite 9/11 thread of all time...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[longship]

8. OMFG! The chicken wire CT defense again!

[uppityperson]

14. Oh dear. Um. Ok. Um. Oh dear.

[one_voice]

17. Speechless...

and believe me that's rare.

[ProSense]

12. I guess it's

"I'm waiting for someone to post some 9/11 truther shit and someone actually defending it as legit and mainstream. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff I'm seeing."

...all good. Kooks and racists, as long as they support the person's point of view.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3113928

What next: Storm Front on civil rights?

[Savannahmann]

9. It is an interesting premise.

Obviously the tabloids are not credible. Yet it was the National Enquirer that broke the story on the fat fucker Limbaugh's drug addiction. Now that doesn't mean I buy/read the tabloids. It does mean I am not so quick to dismiss just because of the source. After all. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut occasionally.

For me, it is the information, the message over messenger.

[ProSense]

10. "Even a blind squirrel will find a nut occasionally. "

That's an interesting way of framing credibility.

I guess the RW is in pursuit of such a "nut"

"Global warming is a hoax"

"Obama is a Muslim from Kenya."

Make wildy absurd bullshit claims and sort of the facts later. Who knows, kernels and all?

[Savannahmann]

22. So for you it is the messenger over the message?

Perhaps we can work with that. Perhaps we can move to create an approved news source. One that provides news that is only authorized or quotable news source. We can call the newspaper Truth. Yes, we'll call it The Truth, and that will be the only news source we can read or quote from. Excellent idea.

[randome]

16. For every nut that blind squirrel finds, though, he'll break five teeth on rocks!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[mattclearing]

11. There are degrees of credibility.

Plenty of "credible" journalism turns out to be utter bullshit, and less-established outlets break major stories which so-called legitimate sources ignore all the time.

All journalism comes from fallible people with biases and blind spots. A publication's credibility relies mainly on the combination of its writers', fact-checkers', and editors' ability to accurately and neutrally inform. It's not a profitable thing, which is why it doesn't happen very often these days.

My point is that if someone can demonstrate that they have a FOIA documenting something, that is probably not utter bullshit. Also, while the article your seem to be referring to did insinuate a connection between military contractors and the Boston bombing, it was worded so as to leave room for doubt.

It's a crazy world. The best advice I can give is to read everything skeptically, and use your head.

[avaistheone1]

15. There are CIA connections to the Boston bombing.

However, I am not saying the CIA did it.

I will post a source this weekend.

[felix_numinous]

18. This is an open forum

and as long as someone writes, "In my opinion', 'I think', or 'I believe' instead of speaking in absolutes, I don't have a problem understanding the conversation. This is a discussion board, so opinions are part of it.

I get excited and write in absolutes sometimes, but I try not to Thank you for the appeal for clarity, it helps.

[rhett o rick]

19. "The US government did not assassinate Michael Hastings by remotely taking control of his car and

deliberately crashing it." And you you are so positive how? What is your source? Sounds to me like you're speculating. Maybe even creative speculation.

One difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is always certain. "I am certain that the government doesnt spy on us or do anything else that I dont like. I am positive about that and I love my fearless leader."

I say that it looks like a terrible accident that killed Michael Hastings. But I will not overrule foul play. I choose to keep an open mind until I learn more. And I am disappointed in those that claim to be "politically liberal people" and yet close their minds to other explanations. I see their rush to cover up any possible irregularity as fear of the truth. Fear to the point that they will disparage Michael Hastings hours after his death to try to discourage discussion. These are conservatives and they belong in the Republican Party with the other authoritarians.

[99Forever]

20. And your "credible source" is what?

Pot...

... meet kettle.

[HardTimes99]

21. As Michael Parenti quipped, you can call me a conspiracy theorist if

I can call you a coincidence theorist.