| 22nd February 2008 01:18 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
I see a "Bored Piranha Appreation Thread" in our future. Howe about you? |
| 22nd February 2008 07:05 AM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
I see a "Bored Piranha Appreation Thread" in our future. Howe about you?
We need a "Chairman of the Bored" thread.
This a.m., I read that Mi. Obama bullies B.O. publicly by calling him "snorey and stinky."
|
| 22nd February 2008 08:37 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
I'm no McCain fan at all.
Personally I think they knocked a few wires loose when he was a POW.
But the whole NYT story is a clinic in biased journalism.
No fire.
And the only smoke is that of the Times writers who, despite having literally hundreds of potential sources, cite to nothing.
NOTHING.
So, zero substance.
Now throw on the timing.
A story that they have been sitting on for months.
About alleged things that happened nearly a decade ago.
C'mon.
Even you libs gotta admit this was poor judgment all the way around at the Times.
The Times needs some of them there Harvard lawyers.
Them boys is smart and they got good English too. |
| 22nd February 2008 08:42 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
to call the NYT a 'liberal' paper is to show how far to the totalitarian one has drifted...a more status quo/entrenched interest supporting rag can barely be imagined (except in Texas)
they published it now because the 'New Republic' was about to break their story on how people at the NYT were clamping down on it in fear from the nutjobs on the right (sic)
|
| 22nd February 2008 08:48 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
John McCain's Skeleton Closet
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
-------------------------------------------
The Skeleton Closet
http://www.realchange.org/
All the Dirt on All the Candidates for President
--Since 1995--
Because character DOES matter.
You've come to the right place for dirt, attitude and
opinionated character reviews of all the presidential candidates.
----------------------------------------------------------
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| 22nd February 2008 10:07 AM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
to call the NYT a 'liberal' paper is to show how far to the totalitarian one has drifted...a more status quo/entrenched interest supporting rag can barely be imagined (except in Texas)
they published it now because the 'New Republic' was about to break their story on how people at the NYT were clamping down on it in fear from the nutjobs on the right (sic)
Riffy |
| 22nd February 2008 10:12 AM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Riffy
Poor judgement. |
| 22nd February 2008 10:15 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Factory Girl wrote:
Poor judgement.
I'm tellin' ya...if I start using this phrase and embarass myself then I'll have to re-define my definition of cool. |
| 22nd February 2008 10:25 AM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Factory Girl wrote:
Poor judgement.
I agree Jizzbot's post was in poor judgment. I mean surely there is not one person with any real objectivity that could claim that the NYT is an unbiased or fair newspaper. I mean you'd have to be a raging liberal filled with partisan ignorance to the degree that I never met in the real world.
Riffy |
| 22nd February 2008 10:38 AM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
I agree Jizzbot's post was in poor judgment. I mean surely there is not one person with any real objectivity that could claim that the NYT is an unbiased or fair newspaper. I mean you'd have to be a raging liberal filled with partisan ignorance to the degree that I never met in the real world.
Riffy
Try again, cowboy. |
| 22nd February 2008 12:23 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
quote:
Factory Girl wrote:
We need a "Chairman of the Bored" thread.
I'd give that title to Gladys "glencar" Kravitz.
I'm waiting in anticipation for Sunday, when he starts a thread devoted to the Oscars. And you? |
| 22nd February 2008 12:26 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
I have seen the light! The Obama has healed me and shown me how to hope again! I dream to hope that I can change.
All hail The Obama! Hail! Yes we can! Si, Se Puede!
Riffy |
| 22nd February 2008 12:43 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
CNN is re-running last night's debate. She's as shrill as ever. He's still doing the platitudes things. If McCain can't beat this guy, I'm outta here. |
| 22nd February 2008 12:47 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Isn't the timing of the McCain article really strange? I mean if you were really trying to drop a hit piece on a nominee, wouldn't you be doing it in Oct right before the election? There seems to be a lot more behind how and why the story was dropped into the paper than the (non)story itself. Doesn't seem that the NY Times has been desperately trying to seem non partisan in recent years? Why lead with a story befitting of the tabloids? |
| 22nd February 2008 12:49 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
That story is even beneath tabloid standards! I heard on last night's news that the New Republic is also running a story on the article so the Times rushed it. Now they look like idiots & poor journos. Plus they lost a subscriber or two. |
| 22nd February 2008 12:52 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
Isn't the timing of the McCain article really strange? I mean if you were really trying to drop a hit piece on a nominee, wouldn't you be doing it in Oct right before the election? There seems to be a lot more behind how and why the story was dropped into the paper than the (non)story itself. Doesn't seem that the NY Times has been desperately trying to seem non partisan in recent years? Why lead with a story befitting of the tabloids?
Hmmm,....you pose an interseting question. Let's all ponder on it for a bit.............what possible reason would the NYT run this story now?...hmm,......who's pocket could they be in....hmmmm,....
Riffy |
| 22nd February 2008 12:57 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
DRINKING AGAIN!
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/51374.html |
| 22nd February 2008 01:01 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Hmmm,....you pose an interseting question. Let's all ponder on it for a bit.............what possible reason would the NYT run this story now?...hmm,......who's pocket could they be in....hmmmm,....
Riffy
I don't the answer is going to be obvious as that. Soros is paying David Brooks' and Bill Kristols' salary? No Way? |
| 22nd February 2008 01:02 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I wonder if Cindy McCain will go all Hilary on his ass & throw some lamps? |
| 22nd February 2008 01:06 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
I have seen the light! The Obama has healed me and shown me how to hope again! I dream to hope that I can change.
All hail The Obama! Hail! Yes we can! Si, Se Puede!
Riffy
Some people have been calling Obama "The Pope of Hope." |
| 22nd February 2008 01:13 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I wonder if Cindy McCain will go all Hilary on his ass & throw some lamps?
Nah she's too Stepford for that. That might undo all her facework by accident. |
| 22nd February 2008 01:15 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
The point is that while Soros may, or may not, be involved in this non-story, his tentacles run deep in liberal circles. I mean it was the NYT that ran the "Betray Us" ad that violated their very own rules! Who paid for that ad? MoveOn.org. Who funds MoveOn.org?
Puppet Master in Chief George Soros.
Riffy |
| 22nd February 2008 01:20 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
gypsy wrote:
Some people have been calling Obama "The Pope of Hope."
Oh I like that!
It's an Obamanation! Or is that Abomination?
Yes we can! Si, Se Puede!
Riffy |
| 22nd February 2008 01:20 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Yeah but wouldn't he want to focus his attention on KO'ing Clinton before Ohio and Texas? This story is will be long forgotten by the time the election actually rolls around. If Soros were behind it, wouldn't he drop it 2 weeks before the actual election so that the weak kneed electorate would change their vote? Just my 2 cents.
|
| 22nd February 2008 01:27 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
Yeah but wouldn't he want to focus his attention on KO'ing Clinton before Ohio and Texas? This story is will be long forgotten by the time the election actually rolls around. If Soros were behind it, wouldn't he drop it 2 weeks before the actual election so that the weak kneed electorate would change their vote? Just my 2 cents.
Could be monkey_man. I just find it hard to keep up with the vast left wing conspiracy. 
All I know for sure is that Soros' brand of patriotism I could do without. It is the very definition of socialism, and both Hillary and The Obama parrot it with the best of the "progressives".
Riffy |
| 22nd February 2008 01:32 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
moveon.org done been humbled. The "Betray Us" ad had even Hillary criticizing them, if memory serves. Barry Obama is KILLING Hilly in this debate from last night. She's shrill & very ugly in her delivery. He's slightly to the right of her on health care although neither plan grabs me. |
| 22nd February 2008 01:33 PM |
|
|
| Mikey |
I am neither pro-dem or repub, yet still don't understand the outrage of the McCain story?
The guy's the Republican lead nominee for President, has a interesting past, somewhat checkered (keating 5, hopping the corporate jet, cheating on his wife) and the Times ran a story based on, at this time, anonymous sources that reported that mccain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that they thought might be romantic. That's not a story? Also, anonymous sources doesn't mean the Times doesn't know their identity and would use it to fact check. So the fact that they won't go on the record disproves their insight?
Was mccain smeared? perhaps, but this is not a story on the pope. in other words, the guy's definetly got an "interesting" background in politics and therefore, I don't think the story's entirely out of line when referencing the lead character.
If anyone has a problem with my opinion, please attack it, not me.
|
| 22nd February 2008 01:33 PM |
|
|
| Mikey |
quote:
glencar wrote:
moveon.org done been humbled. The "Betray Us" ad had even Hillary criticizing them, if memory serves. Barry Obama is KILLING Hilly in this debate from last night. She's shrill & very ugly in her delivery. He's slightly to the right of her on health care although neither plan grabs me.
|
| 22nd February 2008 01:33 PM |
|
|
| Mikey |
quote:
glencar wrote:
moveon.org done been humbled. The "Betray Us" ad had even Hillary criticizing them, if memory serves. Barry Obama is KILLING Hilly in this debate from last night. She's shrill & very ugly in her delivery. He's slightly to the right of her on health care although neither plan grabs me.
The recent Berkely incident repulsed me.
[Edited by Mikey] |
| 22nd February 2008 01:39 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
From CNN:
"Dan Schnur, McCain's communication director during his 2000 presidential bid, told CNN on Thursday that he was involved in most high-level situations and that such a problem almost certainly would have "landed on my desk."
Schnur said that he was unaware of any "improper" relationship between the senator and Iseman and that he had never heard of any meeting with staffers and McCain about such a concern.
Schnur, a professor of political science at the University of California-Berkeley, has no connection to the McCain camp now.
Schnur said he spoke on the record with a Times reporter in December and said he knew of no problems surrounding Iseman. He said he was surprised the paper gave no hint of his views."
From U.S. News:
"The Chicago Tribune reports that "McCain officials challenged the accuracy of key aspects of the report, including claims that the staff banned Iseman from McCain's office because she was hanging around all the time. 'There was only one staffer who had the authority or the ability to do that, and that was me,' said Mark Salter, McCain's longtime chief of staff. 'And I never did anything of the kind because I had no reason to.'""
Also from CNN:
"In a statement Thursday, The New York Times said it stands by its reporting and that "the story speaks for itself."
"We publish stories when they are ready," Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a statement, explaining the article reached his desk Tuesday. " 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats.
"This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works."
The Times article explored McCain's relationships with and stances toward lobbyists and special interests.
Gabriel Sherman of The New Republic magazine said Thursday that a disagreement between Keller and the reporters who wrote the article had held up its publication.
The magazine started asking about the Times article after a report appeared on the Drudge Report Web site earlier this month, Sherman said.
The New Republic on Thursday published an article on its Web site about the Times investigation after the newspaper's report appeared.
"We got a sense from Mr. Keller and the paper that they did not want this article, this back story, told about why they were holding the McCain investigation," Sherman said.
"The reporters felt they they had nailed the story. Bill Keller and the editors felt they needed more documentary proof in the absence of a photograph or hotel receipt that proved this alleged affair," Sherman said.
"The reporters felt they nailed it. The editors felt they needed more, and, eventually, the reporters' view won out.""
----------
Okay Keller - how do you nail down the facts when there are none in the story?
How does one do that exactly?
And when nailing down the "facts" - how does one ignore the statements of Dan Schnur or Salter?
Let's not cloud the issues with the facts!
|
