| Author |
Message |
    
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:47 pm: | 
|
I dont claim to be an 'authority' but at least Im not the voice of absurd comedy like you are. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5546
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:19 pm: |
|
"The dopey New York Times just hosed the country by revealing the secret financial war on the terrorists."
Yes, they knew nothing about it, even though the President and the State Department have been talking about tracking financial transactions for years.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Yup-- google 9-11 & Swift & Consortium, if you dont remember that "follow the money" was in the news for a good part of Sept & Oct, 2001.
In fact they did follow the money, it led to Dubai. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Nohero-
If everyone knew about it why did the NYT feel the need to write about it in detail, despite requests not to?
If you can't see that the NYT has an agenda then you are blind.
Hoops-that was a truly stupid response to FvF. Both of us are trying to give you and outside perspective how the left is viewed (arrogant and clueless instead of humble and enlightened) by the majority of the country and you mock us.
How many elections do the Dems need to lose before they realize this? Every election lost is blamed on the stupidity of the voters (the very voters (little men)you claim to represent).
-SLK |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5548
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
SLicK -
The answer to your question is a simple one.
The terrorists didn't need the NYT to find out about it - since it was discussed by government officials. Folks who are actually involved in international finance would know about things like this.
The American people did not really know about this. Shouldn't we know what our government is doing, in order to ensure that it is not exceeding its legal authority?
That's how it works here, you know.
It has nothing to do with carrying on about "the NYT agenda".
Or, to put it another way, if Americans start believing that the truth is bad, then the terrorists win.  |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 806
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
President Hoops says:
" The islamic fanatics will just go away if we " be about peace"." 
I am going to start calling you Neville Chamberlin Hoops.
Nohero-
Suprised at you for trying to minimize the extent of what the NYT did. Peter King was against Clinton's impeachment so he is not your rabid frouthing at the mouth republican, however he was damn right to call for the Times to be referred for prosecution. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2192
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
the American people knew about this in general terms (at least those of us who pay attention, and can remember further back than last week, that is). we didn't know specifically that the administration was apparently conducting some fishing expeditions among the banking data, however. also, given that they're also fishing around in phone calls and emails, the context is now different than it was in '01. so that makes it news, but it certainly doesn't tip off al Qaeda to anything that Bush himself hadn't already told them five years ago. sometimes I can't decide whether the right wing tools are just arguing for the sake of being contentious, or they really can't remember anything that happened before today's talking points, or they're just really, really, stupid. I know they hate that we "arrogant leftists" assume they're dumb, but jeez, if you're going to act this stupid, what else are we supposed to think? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 807
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:02 pm: |
|
O' Boogie-
And your last sentence shows why Karl Rove is sitting there in his office laughing at you and Howie Baby over at the DNC.
Can you do a Dean yell? You will when you see President Jeb Bush on TV in 2010.
Incredible. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5550
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
And what is the secret that will form the basis of the indictment of the NYT? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:53 pm: |
|
exactly the pont nohero. there is no rational basis for an indictment.
sorry FVF, but anyone who thinks the NYT has committed treason and/or should be prosecuted is being stupid, plain and simple. or possibly just knowingly repeating stupid talking points. sometimes it's possible to discuss and respectfully disagree. this is not one of those times. the right wing nuts, from GWB on down, are being deeply and profoundly stupid on this issue. you're right though, it may resonate with lots of voters. and if it helps the Republicans, it can only mean that millions of voters are as stupid as I fear they are. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 956
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:09 am: |
|
Historically speaking, I think the criminalization of journalism/journalists has always been a positive sign that something really great is about to happen. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 809
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:13 am: |
|
Nohero and O'Boogie-
Lets see what happens with the NYT. However you have to agree that they have provided the repubs with wonderful ammunition in their campaigns and cheapened a NYT endorsement everywhere outside of Manhattan.
For you dems I think having Howard Dean as the titular head of the party is a major mistake. A southern democrat would have been a wiser selection.
My sense is that the repubs are ripe for the taking nationally, but the dem party continually shoots itself in the foot, as it is doing now with the extreme left of the party making Iraq withdrawal a political litmus test for a Presidential candidate.
Frankly I hope both parties go for an "unknown" candidate next time, rather than the presumptive front runners.
I do find the idea of Newt Gingrich running very intriquing, since he is as polarizing a figure as Hillary. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2194
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:29 am: |
|
no, I don't "have to agree" with you. actually your point is pretty weak. what makes you think anyone who's going to hold any of this against the NYT would have looked to them for endoresements in the first place? more likely is that they already were haters of the "liberal media" in general, and the Times in particular. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 815
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 6:17 pm: |
|
O'Boogie-
My point-
The people who get the Times endorses will think 2x before using it. And the people not getting it will use it against the endorsee.
Did you see how Bob Menendez and Frank voted differently on flag burning? Wonder why? It called an e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n where you have to appeal to the most people possible in order to win.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2196
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 6:39 pm: |
|
so people who think the Times has committed a prosecutable offense will continue to buy and read it? and the people not getting it didn't already consider it "the liberal NY Times?" your argument isn't very convincing. it falls far short of any "you have to agree" standard. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:11 pm: |
|
The Times and Coulter are in the same league. They do whatever gets them attention and cash. The left hates Coulter and the right hates the Times. But they are both successful beyond belief. I'm not gullible to give either a dime. I read both when I can for free. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3439
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:29 pm: |
|
"The Times and Coulter are in the same league."
This has to be one of the most preposterous statements I've read here in along time. Even if you had said "The NY Times Editorial Board and Ann Coulter are in the same league", it would be ridiculous. Apparently you are not able to read either of them very often. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 822
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:52 pm: |
|
O'Boogie-
The circulation of the NYT is down significantly without any regard to readers' politics. But the NYT still has a reputation as the paper of record, which can impress people, but it will be clearly diminished by this incident.
Look at what happened at CBS after the Rather scandal. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5191
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
While I was away today, did the Times' story turn out to be false? If not, why would their reputation as the paper of record be diminished? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2197
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
fvf,
your argument is vacuous. you say it's so because you say it's so. please explain precisely what type of voter would have looked to the Times' endorsements in deciding their votes, but now will actually vote the opposite of the Times' endorsement because of this story. your entire premise makes no logical sense, yet you continue to flog it. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 8:51 am: |
|
Newspapers in general have seen a major fall-off in readership. theres this thing called the internet that is taking their readership.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2199
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 8:57 am: |
|
and do you know where people are going for news on the internets? sites like www.newyorktimes.com.
 |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 582
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 9:02 am: |
|
Despite the fall in newspaper readership and this applies to all newspapers acrross the nation, there is no denying that the Times does play an instrumental role in shaping public opinion given its stature here in the US and the world over. In addition to the editorials, op-ed columnists like Friedman and Brooks exert some influence on policy makers.
This admin expects the media to be lapdogs than watchdogs of democracy. Isn't it ironical that they are trying spread the ideals of free press and freedom of speech in Iraq while they are busy muzzling the press here. What a travesty! |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2200
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
actually I would agree that the Times has done a lot of things over the past decade to erode its own influence among those who would see it as the paper of record. it's just ludicrous to add the revelations of the Bush Admin's surveillance efforts to the list. here's my list of the Times' journalistic "sins" that have eroded their credibility:
- their abysmal Whitewater coverage. a number of their front page scoops turned out to be less than true.
- the Jayson Blair debacle. not much needs to be said on this one.
- the Judith Miller WMD series. more than any other news organization, the Times gave the Bush Admin credibility in their bogus campaign to sell the war.
- Thomas Friedman's op-eds on the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, since 2002. could he have been more wrong, more often. after Miller, he was the second most influential "lib" to help sell Bush's war.
If anything, the Times' aggressive reporting on the Bush Admin's secret surveillance programs might restore some of the credibility they've lost with their core readership. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 9:52 am: |
|
Dr., You forgot about Wen Ho Lee, and the "liberal" Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd's unchallenged war on Gore. Those two either initiated or propelled earth tones, Love Story, Love Canal, inventing the internet, all that stuff into the mainstream. The New York Times did more than the Washington Times ever could to put Bush in the White House.
Mustt mustt, "Isn't it ironical" -ironical? I'll say...
As for Brooks, I don't know if he's too serious....
 |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Hoops, stop citing facts to confuse these Christo-Neo-death cult-conservative- rapture righties, please.
"Newspapers in general have seen a major fall-off in readership."
 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page