Printable View
I'm just about fed up with all the " news " sources quoting " unnamed sources " in the news . If a person cannot have the courage to say [ yes I said that ] then he/she should keep their mouth shut. No un named source should be used as a reference. There is no credibility if a statement cannot be verified.
I was told by a very reliable " unnamed " person that Ben actually likes the smart car rather than any truck on the market. Now. prove me wrong on that statement .
I can only offer the scientifically proven evidence (from an unnamed scientist who prefers anonymity to public derision) that the only difference between walking and riding in a smart car, or any truck on the market (especially Fords), besides the mighty, reliable and powerful Dodge/Cummins, is you can't swing your arms in the smart car...:tiptoe:...BenQuote:
Originally Posted by Independent Voter
Really IV----thought to ponder----you are a member of the Federal Government and you see things going on that are both detrimental to the country and could be "embarrassing" to trump(or any high official, independent of party)---do you just look the other way because you know if you are exposed your career is about to change or do you seek anonymity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent Voter
In addition to that, many real journalists (of which there are few these days) have developed confidential sources over time and they have found them to be creditable---exposing them would end their value, not to mention their livelihood.
In the current age of vindictiveness---I'm just fine with "confidential sources". Without question, they have proven to be far more dependable than the press room or the Rose Garden.