NYT Retaliates against Cheney and Rumsfeld

Originally posted by Legalizer

Originally posted by jsobecky
Two can play this game. Someone should publish the name, address, telephone numbers, financial data, shoe size, family details, and anything else about the members of the NYT management and every one of their reporters.

Yeah but the New York Times hasn't bombed and killed 50,000 people in a foreign nation, nor has it taken billions of tax payer dollars and handed it off to their buddies who serve our troops filthy water and bacteria infested food.

So who cares where NYT people live, really?

Its not like Cheney and Rumsfield vacation alone and are ever vulnerable, our tax dollars pay out millions to Secret Service to cover their old saggy rear ends. The people of the nation should be so well protected, but read any newspaper or police blotter , anywhere, anyday and its obvious Americans aren't protected at all, and with these traitors in office neither is the Constituition.




[edit on 1-7-2006 by Legalizer]

Check and Mate........ Why can't Bush apologists face the facts and realize they overreached their power in this geopolitical move. Until you do your talking point is going to sink further into the mud

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
FOX News has alerted the terrorists to the number of people who will be traveling over the July 4th weeknd!

The roads and airports will likely be pretty crowded this weekend. AAA over 40 million people will travel over the Independence Day weekend. That's a record.

How dare they print this information that plays right into the terrorists' hands! I won't be surprised if FOX News' blatant message to the terrorists showing how vulnerable the travelers are costs the lives of many of these American travelers this year. :shk:

FOX News should be charged with treason, in my opinion...

[/satire]

You do have a point. Our conservative media reveals alot of intel on America. Remember Santorum and his moronic move of showing you the document to the TV screen? And these twits have the nerve to complain about a "Liberal Media"

Liberal media is a myth. All press should be free. But right now the corporatists get their daily headlines from the conservative pundits and strategists at large. All along blaming the Liberal media with extravagant Theatrical bravado of hating america. It's just so damn moronic.

I think it's hillarious. It's about time someone stood up to these creeps who supposedly protect America. Kudos to the Times! Lots of people complain that the media spreads disinformation. Well, maybe this is what we need to get those major media outlets to to start giving us the real scoop., If anything, I'd say they have hopefully set the tone. The way in which they did so, isn't exactly appropriate, I'll agree to that. But, a little research, and anyone could get that same information. It's called a low blow, but like I said, hopefully it set the tone for all major media outlets.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by maximusX]

Originally posted by maximusX
I think it's hillarious. It's about time someone stood up to these creeps who supposedly protect America. Kudos to the Times! Lots of people complain that the media spreads disinformation. Well, maybe this is what we need to get those major media outlets to to start giving us the real scoop., If anything, I'd say they have hopefully set the tone. The way in which they did so, isn't exactly appropriate, I'll agree to that. But, a little research, and anyone could get that same information. It's called a low blow, but like I said, hopefully it set the tone for all major media outlets.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by maximusX]

Damn straight. Could we also mention how NY TIMES isn't a paper for "Liberals" Remember Judy Miller's scoop of WMD's? There are so many things that NY TIMES never stands up for. All NY TIMES is doing is trying to vindicate it's credibility on a blunder such as that by going after a administration that is overreaching in every sense of the word. If people can't see that then they really have drunk the kool aid. This isn't for any political partisianship. This keeps our countries boundaries of executive authority what they can do. In other words do you want Hillary Clinton to have complete authority on national security issues regarding
surveilance?

This is ridiculous. And anyone in this thread who stands there and apologizes for everything this administration does. We do not need any more apologists or sycophants for this administration currently in power. It *IS* patriotic to question
and speak freely to power regardless of time or war not. Some of these threads remind me of how easy it is to hardwire someones mind regarding judgement and reasoning when it comes to Citzen rights.


It's way more than about N.Y. Times.

Originally posted by MRGERBIK
Could we also mention how NY TIMES isn't a paper for "Liberals"

Thanks I needed a good chuckle for the day.

"Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

and

Liberal Bias

Your Ignorance has been denied

[edit on 7/2/2006 by shots]

So... I'm not all that familiar with the NY Times, but let's say it has a liberal slant. So what? FOX has a conservative slant. Always has. What's the point? Certain shows on cnn are more liberal, some more conservative. Lots of news programs have some of each.

What's the matter with being liberal? Hasn't it always been that newspapers endorse certain politicians? What's the big?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What's the matter with being liberal? Hasn't it always been that newspapers endorse certain politicians? What's the big?

There is nothing wrong with being liberal. The problem as I see it is they have no moral ethics when it comes to reporting news related to the war. One can only assume they never heard the phrase loose lips sink ships.

If you had been brought up during WWII I am sure you would understand what I mean, but unfortunately those ethics have been lost when it comes to reporting the news these days

Originally posted by shots
The problem as I see it is they have no moral ethics when it comes to reporting news related to the war.

And this indication of this is...?

That they print stuff that's already known? They print stuff that's easily available to anyone who wants to know? I haven't seen nor heard of any war secrets printed by the NY Times...

You're certainly allowed to have your opinion about the Times. But I haven't seen any proof of your assessment.

The Naked Liberal

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What's the matter with being liberal?

Absolutely nothing at all, in my opinion.

I count many self-avowed Liberals in my circle of family and friends, and don't love any of them one whit less for being Liberals. They are who they are and I respect that completely.

My complaint is not about Liberals, but those who are Liberal and seek to represent themselves as something that they are not.

That also applies to false conservatives, or anyone who claims to embrace some particular political ideology (or declare political neutrality) while secretly practicing another.

To the extent the New York Times does this, it brings discredit upon itself as an erstwhile "newspaper of record".

Integrity should not be too much to expect from a newspaper like the Times.

Or perhaps it is.

Well, like I said, I'm not familiar with the paper. Do they claim not to be liberal? Do they always support 'liberal' candidates, while claiming to be moderate?

I've never seen a news source that is unbiased. Anyone know of any?

All I can say is...

May the curse of Cindy Sheehan be upon them... all through the month of August.

The NYT is the best paper in the US. They demonstrate minor biases.

They published editorials about the WMDs in Iraq that turned out to be propaganda straight from Libby/Cheney.

I have seen some liberal bias in reporting, as well.

In general, they bias their reporting toward 'truth' and truth is not something the neo-conned are happy with.

So of all the papers that published the SWIFT info, the NYT was singled out -- much as France was singled out from 60+ countries that did not support our Iraq invasion.

It's all politics.

The WH announced they were using SWIFT in 2001. The press carried the story that SWIFT info had lead to the capture of a terrorist suspect in 2003.

SWIFT itself is a completely public entity.

This is a matter of making the story of the "leak" overshadow the facts that were revealed. Much like the dialog on the Plame case rarely covers the damage done to US security.

Anyone who cares to can research these and many other instances -- such as that of AQ Khan, whose exposure was engineered for political expediency, even though he was a 'friend of the US' and rumored to be feeding us valuable information on nuclear proliferation.

This administration has put politics above integrity, security, and as cliched as it sounds, the American Way.

Hey someone give me an address I will post a nice sat photo of both of their properties. I would not mind seeing how large these properties are because I want to be sure they are both paying their property taxes in full as well.

# Cock Cheney and Donald # Bumsfeld. # them all I hope they burn in hell.

How does that old saying go? Is it...

...never insult someone who buys ink by the barrel?

I think that's it. Well Cheney and Rumsfeld shouldn't have insulted someone who buys their ink by the barrel.

I find it completely hilarious that the same group of posters (those that lean so far right that they are about to lap the left) who are whining about the NYT possibly exposing private information about our officials in "public service" are the same ones who defend the government for an illegal spying campaign meant to intrude upon the private lives of ordinary citizens. The double standard and hypocracy boggles the mind.

I'm just watching Fox News. Don't ask me why, but was flipping through the channels and saw a heated debate with 5 or six parties talking at the same time. Interesting, some of the comments. One says the times publisher is a 60's hippy who is anti-american. The most interesting thing I heard was they said the times was the first to come out with the original article about the money tracking. Now I have heard that some other outlet came out with the story first. So, are they lying? I wouldn't put it passed them, but isn't that in fact breach of ethics? That just ticks me off when media reporters state something untrue, and I know that Fox is so biased, it isn't even funny.

I want to go back and discuss a statement that I made on page 1 of this thread. That statement, and the one that triggered it are:


*********************
Legalizer: The people of the nation should be so well protected, but read any newspaper or police blotter , anywhere, anyday and its obvious Americans aren't protected at all,

jsobecky: Guess what? State and local gov'ts are under no obligation to keep us safe. And that includes the police.
*********************

The reason I want to discuss this is that I received a very “interesting” u2u about this statement. In it, I was accused of being a traitor, my allegiance to my country was questioned, and this:

“Honestly man, you sound like the traitor to me. You have sold your soul and true spirit of American patriotism for fear of being labeled in contrast to such. It almost sounds as if you are directly connected to the outer/inner party the way you speak.

Now, up front, it was not Legalizer that sent the u2u. I won’t name the person that did.

I made that statement strictly from a legal point of view. I will not belabor the point with examples, etc., I’ll just state the facts:

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
www.firearmsandliberty.com...

Because of this, I was somehow labeled a traitor, part of some type of “circle”, and concerned about appearing unpatriotic.

I’m not going to defend myself. I'm not going to state the obvious argument about why we pay taxes. I only post this because of a courtesy to the person that wrote the u2u, as a reminder to look before you leap.

If anyone wanted to retire these people, they could.

anyone consider the possibility that all this excitement over the NY Times could just be a diversion from a small fact that is becoming more and more glaringly obvious??

That fact being that the overly secretative bush administration seems not able to keep a secret if their lives depended on it??

They can't be entrusted to keep the names of our agents secret...

They can't be entrusted with keeping secret programs secret...

heck, they can't even be entrusted with keeping the personal information of our servicement secret!!!

all of this hoopla about what secrets the newspapers chose to tell us about is just diverting our attention from the fact that our government is too inept to keep a secret secret!!!