How Slimy Can They Get?

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
To set the record straight from the frustrated
people who want to skew like a drudge.


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
How can the NY Times be slimy liberal leftist
when they have Judith Miller on board..does not
make sense and she wrote in support of Chalibi
(you know the guy with Laura at the State of the
Union address)
Judith Miller is in jail basically protecting her
sources which is probably Scotter Libby..so Old
Reg is Judy Miller okay ..she is NY TIMES.

Your response is irrelevant! </font>[/QUOTE]Amen!

The point was the action of the newspaper seeking to unseal the adoption records.

What purpose is intended or would be served by such an action? </font>[/QUOTE]Judith Miller is a bush/cheney/chalabi defender ..New York Times
is defending her to the hilt..so the relevant point is that it is not a leftist/liberal conspiracy with black helicopters swooping down

</font>[/QUOTE]The ASP strikes again!

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... so the relevant point is that it is not a leftist/liberal conspiracy ...

The relevant question is what do the adoption records have to do with the qualifications of this person for the office they're being appointed to fill and what is the intended purpose of having these records unsealed.

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... black helicopters ...

It looks brown to me, ASLANSPAL! </font>[/QUOTE]

The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Daisy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Or even look at the completely and totally baseless charges by leading liberals that the GOP was trying to "suppress" the black vote.

It was not baseless. The GOP board of elections in Florida was, um, overenthusiastic in wiping the voter rolls clean of "criminals". There were roadblocks on election day. What were the other specific charges?</font>[/QUOTE] So the state should not be zealous in enforcing its laws intended to protect the integrity of elections? Do you mean that the state should have "looked the other way" since most of the criminals would have presumably voted Democrat? NO. NO. NO.

Enforce the laws. Period. And moreover, create laws that prevent voter fraud starting with mandatory voter ID.

Roadblocks? You are going to tell me that millions or even hundreds or even thousands of Democratic voters were prevented from voting by "roadblocks" put in place by Republicans.

One legitimate voter who was prevented from voting would be too many... but some accusations, like that one, border on the ridiculous.

If there is a roadblock, try a different route to the polls. Park your car and walk. Iraqis risked life and limb to vote. Good grief are Democratic voters so spoiled that they cannot overcome a minor inconvenience?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The funny thing is that this suppression was basically sending out poll watchers to stop funny business... like the 5000 or so dead people who voted in the city of Atlanta a few years back (reported by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal- itself a very liberal paper).

You'll have to explain this a bit further as I'm unfamiliar with the incident.</font>[/QUOTE] I was living in the Atlanta at the time. In buried story discussing the issue of election problems including supposed black voter suppression if I remember correctly, there came the admission that a review of the (1996) voter lists revealed that over 5000 dead people voted in Atlanta alone.

Atlanta is very heavily black and Democratic. That's 5000 verified fraudulent votes compared to how many verified cases where someone tried to vote but was prevented by GOP operatives?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Tiiiiiiiiiimmmmmme Ouuuuuut!!!!!

Since when is a guy risking his life to PREVENT one of those daily body count stories NOT NEWS?

&lt;big sigh&gt; It stops being news when it happens every day. Stories of prevention never garner the headlines as the stories of [murder|mayhem|atrocities|bloody car crashes] do - sad fact of life, that.</font>[/QUOTE] Guys charging entrenched enemy, killing 20, to save a whole column aren't everyday events.

But even if theses events were every day, the media has a responsibility to balance the failures against at least some impression of the successes. That is the definition of OBJECTIVE reporting.

Even the local papers don't carry much about what the people from here are doing there - I don't know why, but I really doubt "liberal bias" has much to do with it because these are our friends, our friends' kids, our neighbors, our own. What happened to the "embedded" journalists? Why don't we hear from them what the units are doing? This silence is really kind of weird.

I have. I also see it periodically in some of the conservative on-line news sites, though not often enough. What I hear more of though is just a generally frustration with many of our troops over the way the press is giving a overly negative impression of the effort.

Not a "liberal" issue? What ideology harbors the most people biased against the war?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Poor... and very poor compared to the coverage of the discovery of mass graves.

What was poor? Was the discovery of mass graves a success?</font>[/QUOTE] The coverage was not.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Casualty counts are newsworthy and I am sure the information is available.

No, look it up - bodycounts are officially not kept and not disseminated by the American or by the Brittish authorities.</font>[/QUOTE] You are trying to tell me that no one is keeping a casualty count? That would be a first in the history of warfare.

 

[Scott J]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Problem is when the bad news is presented with such complete imbalance that it directly impacts public perceptions.

That is true, it does. Do any of the soldiers send their real stories and/or photos to their local papers? Do the readers of the papers ask for more coverage of that nature? If not, why not?</font>[/QUOTE] Why should the soldiers be expected to do the press' job for it? If the story I linked you to is ignored by the national media, what makes you think a million "real" stories will ever see the light of day?

I mean this guy was on the level of Audie Murphy or Alvin York- men who came to exemplify American heroism due to the media's reporting of them during WWI and WWII.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Name a "right wing" paper. The WSJ is conservative on business matters and editorials but it is pretty neutral regarding the news and often follows the agenda set by others.

I've already named some and the WSJ is considered a conservative paper.</font>[/QUOTE] None of those are widespread daily newspapers intended to inform the masses.

The lesson many of us learned was that you cannot fight someone else's war for them.

Glad we didn't learn that lesson before WWII.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What do you consider the successes and the failures against what the original goals were?
Historically speaking, casualties have been very light.

Well, that's good, but you can't keep trumpeting it as a headline. </font>[/QUOTE] You must if you are going to report objectively... but I have yet to see it trumpetted even the first time.

You're refering to Coalition casualities, rather than Iraqi casualities or both?

Coalition casualties.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The threat of Saddam has been removed and Iraq no longer exists as a safe haven for terrorists and their training camps.

That's only half true - Saddam has been removed. Iraq never had been a safe haven for terrorists who bombed us, but it is definitely a training ground for them now.</font>[/QUOTE] Are you denying that there were terrorists training camps in operation in Iraq with state sanction before our invasion? Are you saying that these camps are still operating in safety now?

Iraq was effectively disabled from pursuing any nuclear arms program.

Tell it to the scientist who wrote a book about what he had buried in his yard and Saddam's continuing activities up until his removal.

We shouldn't be "enduring" Iraq at all.

That is an opinion. Wars are always "endured" when necessary by civilized people.

The media is not supposed to be the President's rah-rah boys.

No. They should simply be as honest and objective as they claim to be. That would be completely satisfactory to me.

As it is, they are making themselves his adversary by the biased impressions they are delivering to the public.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

That's better! Much better! But, unfortunately, these are not the ones about which ASLANSPAL was writing. USSOCOM units, including 160th SOAR, are about war fighting just like the rest of our military even in their specialized missions. ASLANSPAL, was thinking of something Janet Reno, as he put it, would have normally flown in. On the other hand, who knows what he was thinking about. He may be thinking the "black helicopters", normally associated with some super secret government intelligence or law enforcement agency - real or otherwise, are coming to get him. Who knows?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
If the NY Times is so fair and balanced, why haven't they apologized for their fishing expedition on Judge Roberts. Why do you suppose that the overwhelming majority of their so called news items are negative toward anything conservative?

What does it have to do with being "fair and balanced?"
BTW, do you actually read the New York Times? I do, and I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of the paper.

What are the political persuasions of the editorial board and reporters on the NY Times

What are the political persuasions of the editorial board and reporters on the NY Times

Again, do you actually read the New York Times? I do, and I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of the paper.

Sorry about my previous message. I hit the add reply before I was finished.

No problem: it happens.

BiR, I don't time any show, especially talk shows whose format is debate and controversy. If Colmes gets less time, or if liberals get less time they have no one to blame but themselves. It appears to me the producers do a pretty good job of keeping the time even.

If you believe that, then doing a stop watch test will change that opinion. The stop watch test was not my idea - it was posed by Al Franken in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

Regards,
BiR