Replies

Using unfounded accusations to "smear" is one thing.

(I can rustle up a gazillion posts to me, in addition to those on this thread, as example if you like.)

Reporting on the FACT that teenage tricks are touring the White House is another.

The fact Wallaby's posts and the initial reports have been "smeared" by their association with lunatic fringe sites is immaterial to me in that it has no bearing whatsoever on the integrity of the original facts as reported.

Particularly in light of those conservatives bent on digging up Clinton's past and who have embarrassed themselves more than once by readily lapping up whatever personal accusation an anonymous source might offer, this whole defense of the White House (if not Gannon) kinda reeks to high heaven of hypocrisy, IMHO.

Good thing we have Ann around to cheer.

MORE PICS PLEASE!

The fact Wallaby's posts and the initial reports have been "smeared" by their association with lunatic fringe sites is immaterial to me in that it has no bearing whatsoever on the integrity of the original facts as reported.

Uh-uh - it doesn't work that way. It may be fact that unsavory folks got into the White House, but nothing that follows in all that junk is "fact", not even in the most generous definition of the word. "Inference", perhaps. "Speculation", probably. "Wild-a** guesses", pretty likely. But "fact" it is assuredly not - not until there's something more on the table to substantiate it. And by "substantiate", I mean actual evidence, not some elaborate patchwork-quilt consisting of an enormous chain of rumor, innuendo, speculation, and guesswork, all built on one tiny seed of truth - namely, that some weirdo pulled some strings to get a tour of the White House. How can I challenge the "integrity" of the facts in that thread, when there are no facts?

Particularly in light of those conservatives bent on digging up Clinton's past and who have embarrassed themselves more than once by readily lapping up whatever personal accusation an anonymous source might offer...

Surely you're not really this irony-proof, are you? What would you have me make of a conservative who appears to be readily lapping up whatever personal accusation offered about George H.W. Bush and his family?