In You Face (Barack Muslim Rumors)

[corplinx]

EDIT: It should hardly come as a suprise that supporters of Obama's supporters might forward it of their own volition. Your crowing about the Clinton campaign policing itself to purge any hint that it was involved in dsitributing that email is very low. It's actually rather professional of them.

I agree that it was the right thing for the campaign to do. I have no criticism of Hillary herself here.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree that it was the right thing for the campaign to do. I have no criticism of Hillary herself here.

Make that read "supporters of Obama's opponents."

 

[corplinx]

You claimed that the Hillary campaign was the source .

For at least 11 people that we know of, the Hillary campaign was the source. The Hillary campaign has responded by firing the people involved.

This couldn't be any simpler for a reasonable person to grasp.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

For at least 11 people that we know of, the Hillary campaign was the source. The Hillary campaign has responded by firing the people involved.

This couldn't be any simpler for a reasonable person to grasp.

11 divded by several tens or hundreds thousands = You are a liar.

 

[Fnord]

For what it's worth, I won't vote for Barack Obama as president simply because he's backed by Oprah Winfrey. Although since he's running against Hillary Clinton, I might have to declare "Democrat" just to vote for him in the primaries.

 

[corplinx]

11 divded by several tens or hundreds thousands = You are a liar.

Show me where I claimed that every message had to have been sent by Hillary supporters.

In the previous thread:

You completely misunderstood what I said. I said that even though many of these smears were authored by right wingers, the anonymous chain mailers may actually be Hillary supporters. Hillary's supporters have the motive, and its a good smear since it will be attributed back to right wingers who have nothing to fear from Obama at the moment.

I never set up an all or nothing Hillary or right wingnuts choice.

You calling me a liar is strike 1. If you want to continue to talk with me on this forum, I'd suggest not calling me inflammatory names.

 

[Tailgater]

If one person makes an email forwards it to another person, and that person forwards it to ten people, the first person might be the author and source of the email, but the second person is the source of the spam.

I think that's pretty much what he said in the other thread.#36
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3081416#post3081416

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Show me where I claimed that every message had to have been sent by Hillary supporters.

In the previous thread:


I never set up an all or nothing Hillary or right wingnuts choice.

You calling me a liar is strike 1. If you want to continue to talk with me on this forum, I'd suggest not calling me inflammatory names.

You completely misunderstood what I said. I said that even though many of these smears were authored by right wingers, the anonymous chain mailers may actually be Hillary supporters. Hillary's supporters have the motive, and its a good smear since it will be attributed back to right wingers who have nothing to fear from Obama at the moment.

You did not not say "some the anonymous chain mailers may be Hillary supporters as well as right wingers." You claimed that they all were, or to be fair, a significant enough proportion that we can omit the Right Wingers. You have so far accounted for 11 out of tens or hundreds of thousands of emails and have pretended that equates to a validation of your lies, liar.

 

[Tailgater]

You completely misunderstood what I said. I said that even though many of these smears were authored by right wingers, the anonymous chain mailers may actually be Hillary supporters. Hillary's supporters have the motive, and its a good smear since it will be attributed back to right wingers who have nothing to fear from Obama at the moment.

You did not not say "some the anonymous chain mailers may be Hillary supporters as well as right wingers." You claimed that they all were, or to be fair, a significant enough proportion that we can omit the Right Wingers. You have so far accounted for 11 out of tens or hundreds of thousands of emails and have pretended that equates to a validation of your lies, liar.

It's working peeeerfectly. Mwahahaa!

 

[corplinx]

You have so far accounted for 11 out of tens or hundreds of thousands of emails and have pretended that equates to a validation of your lies, liar.

In the previous thread, I made it quite clear in the thread that I was offering it as an equally if not more plausible alternative to the assumption that rabid republicans were behind the emails.

You have called me a liar a second time, and I'm afraid you are going on ignore. Unless you have a really meaningful dialogue with JoeEllision, I don't think I'll regret it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

In the previous thread, I made it quite clear in the thread that I was offering it as an equally if not more plausible alternative to the assumption that rabid republicans were behind the emails.

You have called me a liar a second time, and I'm afraid you are going on ignore. Unless you have a really meaningful dialogue with JoeEllision, I don't think I'll regret it.

You're sticking to your story then? There's no point in conversing with about this any longer.

 

[varwoche]

For at least 11 people that we know of, the Hillary campaign was the source. The Hillary campaign has responded by firing the people involved.

This couldn't be any simpler for a reasonable person to grasp.

I'm at a loss to understand the flack you're taking in this thread.

 

[corplinx]

I'm at a loss to understand the flack you're taking in this thread.

Has the list of right wing media sources repeating or authoring these smears grown any? In the last thread you had a very comprehensive list. I can only imagine that as the likelyhood of Obama beating Hillary in Iowa grows, so will the smears.

 

[Tailgater]

11 divded by several tens or hundreds thousands = You are a liar.

Just for the record, there were 12 emails total. Sorry, that has strangely bothered me.

We don't know how many emails are in circulation.
We don't know who wrote the original email.
We do know that Hillary supporters forwarded 12 emails.
We don't know how many more emails those 12 emails generated in the grand pyramid.
We don't know how many other Hillary supporters forwarded the emails, but we can assume more than 12, because 12 is only a sampling of a larger unknown number.
We do know that right-wingers would also benefit from forwarding the emails, but do not have evidence to prove it. An educated guess would be a significant number.

Hillary supporters and right-wingers have equal to gain from the emails. The only evidence of any forwarding is by Hilllary supporters. Either I missed it or Corp never stated that Hillary supporters were responsible for most of the emails, but at the moment, she has the most to gain from them.

 

[ktesibios]

Well, as far as I've been able to find out, the timeline for this smear piece is something like this:

Late December 2006: email starts circulating (see Snopes.com article)

Jan. 17, 2007: Washington Post publishes article saying that Obama will formally announce his intention to run for President in early February. This is the earliest MSM story to that effect I've been able to find.

Jan 17, 2007: Insight Magazine publishes article repeating most of the claims in the email, makes unverifiable claim that the source is someone in the Clinton campaign.

Jan 22, 2007: CNN debunks "madrassa" claims.

Jan 23, 2007: Obama campaign responds, citing CNN's investigation.

Jan 29, 2007: New York Times rains on wingnuts' parade

Jan 31, 2007: Insight Magazine publishes hair-splitting non-denial denial, emits customary whining about "liberal media".

This is all close enough together that it doesn't point clearly to any one source, however, it also doesn't foreclose the possibility that some writer for Insight received that email (which seems to have been first out of the gate), decided to make it into a story and tried to sex it up by attributing it to another hated Democrat. Whether Obama's impending announcement, which was probably expected in political circles before the W.P. article, was a stimulus is impossible to tell; I just find the temporal coincidence potentially interesting.

The original source of the email, which is probably irretrievably lost, is what we would want to know.

 

[varwoche]

Has the list of right wing media sources repeating or authoring these smears grown any? In the last thread you had a very comprehensive list. I can only imagine that as the likelyhood of Obama beating Hillary in Iowa grows, so will the smears.

Re the false allegation that Obama attended a madrassa, I think I omitted this particularly nauseating hit job courtesy of the tool shed known as Fox and Friends from Jan 07 where they practically paint him as an Islamanchurian^tm candidate. To my knowledge, they never corrected the record other than to report Obama's denials -- hardly as convincing as the on-the-scene reporting that proved the story bogus.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, as far as I've been able to find out, the timeline for this smear piece...

Smear? Why is it a smear? There's nothing disgraceful about being a Muslim, is there? It's not like he tried to swipe the silver out of the White House or something...

 

[ktesibios]

Smear? Why is it a smear? There's nothing disgraceful about being a Muslim, is there? It's not like he tried to swipe the silver out of the White House or something...

It is a smear because the email which started circulating shortly before he announced his candidacy specifically refers to him as a "radical Muslim", and because the Insightmag article claims that he is concealing his true religion [/i]and[/i] that he attended a "madrassa"- a word which has come to mean, in the lexicon of the American media, "breeding ground for radical Muslim terrorists".

If you had bothered to read the links I provided, you should have noticed those facts, unless you have an absolutely tin ear for language.

And another smug little RWA follower goes <plonk>

 

[BPSCG]

If you had bothered to read the links I provided, you should have noticed those facts, unless you have an absolutely tin ear for language.

And another smug little RWA follower goes <plonk>

...and another little humor-impaired LWA fails to recognize the significance of a at the end of a sentence...

 

[JoeEllison]

So, this is a double-smear job. The right wing lies(as they do every single time they say ANYTHING) about Obama, then they spread the second lie that the source of the smear is the Hillary Clinton campaign. Pretty smooth, actually.