alt.politics.usa.republican

In Lamont Cranston <@> wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: > In Bugman wrote:
: >
: > : "spammer" wrote in message
: > : news:533be931-763c-4569-b4f1-757b116c4e22@...
: > : > The times always stands behind the garbage it prints, even after
: > : > it's been proven false. That rag is no better than the Enquirer.
: >
: > : When will it be proven false?
: >
: > When will the article be proven true. A handfull of unamed sources is
: > hardly the basis for a credible article. Where's the proof?

: There were both named and anonymous sources. In the case of two anonymous sources, the story said, "The two associates, who said
: that they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated
: by others."

Sure they did!! We all know that the times would never lie. If they say it, it
must be true. It's a shame they can't produce any evidence to support their
claims.

--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you