Question:
Is an unnamed source credible evidence?
?
2012-08-09 09:34:51 UTC
According to Harry reid an unnamed source is all the evidence that is ever needed to prove anything.

Well an unnamed souce told me harry Reid is lying. So which is true?
21 answers:
Don't Fear The Reaper
2012-08-09 17:21:36 UTC
Leftists once made accusations against Reagan's men. The seriousness of the accusations meant more than actual proof to them. It's normal for them. Guilty. Even if proven innocent. Or, that awful--Bush lied and people died mantra?



Ah, you are telling the truth. Reid lies.
?
2012-08-09 16:47:51 UTC
Harry Reid knows who the source is and said he is a partner / investor at Bain Capital, which means he has insider information of the company, and knows Mitt Romney which would indicate that this person could have knowledge about the subject.

Your claim of an unnamed source does not indicate that he/she even knows Mitt Romney or if he even knows what Bain Capital is prior to this campaign nor if he has any insider information of the company. So your claim has no credence whatsoever while Reid, who has a reputation to uphold, would be unlikely to make something like this up. z
2012-08-09 16:40:29 UTC
An unnamed source warned the State Department about 9/11 but the warning was unheeded
Miss Metro
2012-08-09 16:44:17 UTC
No, a tip or lead from anyone no matter if they are named doesn't prove anything. It's all that is needed to launch an investigation, which then can prove something. Ever heard of Crime Stoppers? It's a program where witnesses can phone an anonymous tip to police. Most of the time though, the accused must be able to face their accuser in court. Sometimes, a well known and respected source is WRONG.
R
2012-08-09 16:39:27 UTC
In general, most unnamed sources can not reveal their identity or they will face reprimand or be fired. In extreme cases they can be imprisoned or even executed depending on the country and situation. In Reid's case he could be lying or he could just be trying not to get he source in trouble. It's impossible to say.
?
2012-08-09 16:54:54 UTC
no...but you trust unnamed sources constantly.



the only reason you have a problem with it is that it's coming from harry reid.



really. I don't trust his source any more than you do, but at least but I'm consistent. I don't trust any source that isn't verifiable.
qwert
2012-08-09 16:37:52 UTC
An unnamed source told me that Harry Reid works for Hamas.
2012-08-09 16:37:43 UTC
Yes, for circumstantial evidence. Possibly you are too senile to remember Deep Throat from the Watergate days. You are not lying that somebody told you Reid is a liar. PS, are you a gypsy psychic?That would wash.
2012-08-09 16:40:54 UTC
The problem is, Reid is allowed to lie and slander while on the floor of Congress, so there need not even be
2012-08-09 16:37:07 UTC
Listen to many of the Fox News reports.



They say "it has been reported" or "some are beginning to believe" or "there's growing concern" in most of their lead-in segments. Yet, rarely quote the source to the report.
2012-08-09 16:37:00 UTC
no not really...



this source is also the main source for cons on:

Obama's birth certificate issue

Obama's college records issue

Obama's involvement in fast and furious



and well, most other con issues...



actually they didn't even have that much evidence in most of these? lol



EDIT: fla swamp... YOU FORGOT THE GRANDDADDY... "some people say" lol...
Weise Ente
2012-08-09 16:36:21 UTC
An unnamed source told Woodward and Bernstein about the Watergate coverup.



So clearly the answer can be yes.
2012-08-09 16:37:02 UTC
Reid won't present the name of his source, or any evidence for his claim, but dammit, Romney absolutely has to release every tax return he's ever filed. And that makes perfect sense to liberals.
2012-08-09 16:41:06 UTC
For Fox News it is.
2012-08-09 16:42:25 UTC
Sometimes it is. IDK in this case. Anyway, if Romney didn't pay any taxes it would be because of the tax codes and loopholes. Be mad at those and not the people who take advantage of them.
Deplorable and Proud
2012-08-09 16:40:05 UTC
To liberals it is as long as the "source" is damaging to the Right.
2012-08-09 16:39:23 UTC
They destroyed Republican candidates with imaginary people so why would Democrats stop now?
The Taxpayer
2012-08-09 16:39:34 UTC
Once you get by the integrity roadblock...anything is possible.
2012-08-09 16:37:07 UTC
Journalists and SuperPACS do it all the time....
?
2012-08-09 16:38:20 UTC
That's the best any Democrat ever has.
2012-08-09 16:36:39 UTC
don't you mean when faux news sez "some say Obama is from kenya"



you mean like that?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...