Where the info comes from is not the issue, it never is, the issue is ALWAYS, is it true? Attacking the messager is a time tested method of deflected a truth that one does not like. If you think the facts presented are incorrect then present some evidence that refutes them. If you think the source is not creditable then us show a pattern of the source lying.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/dnc-return-lobbyists-donations-after-opensecretsorg-blog-exposes-#ixzz1jGyGPpa7
Second a source can ALWAYS be an issue if there is a bias.
But I'll play along...
The proof they are fraudulent, besides their source, is their existence and the lack of ANY information that supports it.
What was the source of the data, who was polled, called, filled out what form etc.. Where did the information come from.
Furthermore what was the make up of those allegedly polled, it says DOD and “active” military. So what jobs and functions do these people have? Where did they serve and when?
When you have that data, something tangible instead of some simple “report’ then you can make an arguemnt as far as it being factual or not
I'll give you a hint, the whole thing has been debunked, your friend posted it early today as a thread that was pulled because the mods and everyone with a grasp of reality knows it is BS.