Michelle Obama's Binge Drinking Leading to Divorce!

reply to post by getreadyalready
Hey, I don't read the National Enquirer.
And I am not calling you an Obamaphile, for certain.

But if you read my later post you will find that the Nat. Enq. has broken major stories before. I am just saying that there was no proof to be calling GWB a coc aine addict or blaming him for being a boozehound while in office. Both were done, without evidence.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by butcherguy]

reply to post by SelfmadeGME


Don't be so hard on yourself . This kind of stuff happens quite often on ATS . You just have to learn to deal with it . Don't stop participating just because a few are having a laugh at your expense . I really don't think they are laughing at you , personally , but at the Enquirer instead .

And , you have to remember , these are the same ones who believe in " Grays , no planes and mole people " .

Quitters never win and winners never quit .

Stick around , it's more fun than jerry springer at times .

Originally posted by SelfmadeGME
Ok whatever MODS just delete this thread like always, damn I'm new at this give me a break, this will be the last time I ever post a thread because I always get bashed at!

Good.

That's one win for those who want reasoned debate based on reliable sources.

However, should you decide to start another thread a good rule of thumb is to not sensationalize anything and make your thread title reflect the content of your OP. Think of it like this. Raise your game or don't be surprised when people raise their middle finger and bash you.

Best regards

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
When has the National Enquirer ever been a source of real news?


Also your "source" doesn't mention divorce at all. Your title is just as misleading as their articles. You shouldn't make up stories.

Two glasses of champagne is not a problem.


[edit on 8/30/2010 by mblahnikluver]

If we have fifty page threads off of Daily Mail, and people argue that it is an acceptable source, whoa re we to question the Pulitzer Prize winning NE?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
When has the National Enquirer ever been a source of real news?


Also your "source" doesn't mention divorce at all. Your title is just as misleading as their articles. You shouldn't make up stories.

Two glasses of champagne is not a problem.


[edit on 8/30/2010 by mblahnikluver]

If we have fifty page threads off of Daily Mail, and people argue that it is an acceptable source, whoa re we to question the Pulitzer Prize winning NE?

Thank you.

And others might want to look at the refs to the 'grays' that the Nat. Enq. is said to believe in.

They started the Weekly World News to purvey that silliness to the wackos YEARS ago, switching their emphasis to covering celebrity and political scandals, like the Daily Mail.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by butcherguy]

I wish it were true, it'd make her racist self seem more human

2nd

I'm kind of surprised the National Enquirer isn't one of the websites/sources that ATS doesn't allow.
I know that a few other sites and sources aren't allowed because they are known as hoax starters and purveyors, and use "creative reporting".
Seems that this is the Definition of the Enquirer.