RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


meatcleaver -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 2:31:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I am extremely worried. The requirement for id-cards always precedes a large scale genocide. I can taste a war and a genocide in the near future during which tens of millions of European and North-African people will be slaughtered. I fear that in The Netherlands alone up to two thirds of the population may be slaughtered. It happened in Cambodia and therefore it may happen anywhere.


Well now you are worrying me. While Holland has a tendency to be bureaucratic, I haven't noticed swastikas painted on walls and yellow stars being painted on doors nor do I expect it, more a dose of misery at being knocked out of the World Cup.

Rule, you either spend too much time in the coffee houses getting paranoid with smoking too much dope or not spending enough time in the coffee houses and loosening up with the odd puff of dope.




Rule -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 2:59:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Well now you are worrying me. While Holland has a tendency to be bureaucratic, I haven't noticed swastikas painted on walls and yellow stars being painted on doors nor do I expect it, more a dose of misery at being knocked out of the World Cup.

Wait until one of the European secret services puts nuclear material into the hands of some of the islamic nutcases they nurture here and direct those terrorists to explode it in a major European city. The Europeans will be even more screaming mad than the Americans when Bush gave the order to start the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Rule, you either spend too much time in the coffee houses getting paranoid with smoking too much dope or not spending enough time in the coffee houses and loosening up with the odd puff of dope.

I confess it is the latter; I cannot tolerate air pollution, so I avoid coffee shops.




meatcleaver -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 3:34:32 PM)

OK Rule. I'm going to get my straitjacket out of the wardrobe.




Lordandmaster -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 3:55:33 PM)

The NEW YORK TIMES?  The same New York Times that acted as the Bush Administration's running dog for two years by spreading all their false information about weapons of mass destruction?

This story is a non-issue.  The Times discussed the story with the Administration before releasing it.  No one could have been surprised.  Instead, it's being used by the right wing as yet another diversionary tactic to keep people worried about whether newspapers are liberal instead of asking why the hell we don't have an energy policy or like, just by the way, when are we going to get out of Iraq?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lisa1978

New York Times is a liberal newspaper. I will not argue that point.




Rule -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 3:59:06 PM)

Thanks, meatcleaver. I appreciate your concern. [;)]




caitlyn -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 6:26:30 PM)

Well said Lordandmaster Sir!




ladychatterley -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 8:35:22 PM)

The New York Times is NOT a liberal newspaper.  The New York Times ridicules anyone that questions free trade, published Judy Miller's rumors based on Chalabai's hallucinations as fact and assumes that capitalism is the best way.  The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive and The New York Review of Books are all liberal papers.  (I'm a liberal, and damn proud of it.)  The New York Times is a 'fact based' newspaper.  The editorials of the NY Times have a liberal tilt (Rich, Krugman and Herbert, clearly liberal, Dowd, Friedman and Kristof not exactly classifiable although my gut instinct is that Nicholas Kristof is a liberal (Bill Kristof is a whole other can of fish), Brooks and Tierney libretarian to conservative; the unsigned editorials are liberal).

The Wall Street Journal is not a right-wing paper.  It has a bias towards the free market and clearly revels in capitalism.  But the WSJ's editorials are very, very right wing.

If the Bush administration had done anything to show they cared about the safety of the American people, I might trust them.  But when you ignore a presidential daily briefing that said "Bin Ladin Determined to attack inside United States" dismiss the CIA agent with a "you've covered your ass" and then play golf for a month, when you ignore a hurricaine headed toward New Orleans, when you lie us into a war that makes us much less safe, and when you spy on us all through illegal means (Fisa is the law, Bush ignored it--that is illegal!) and attack the gays and kinksters and focus on flag burning to distract from your utter incompetence, then forgive me if I don't give you the benefit of the doubt!

Bush is destroying this country!  He is evil.  He is mortgaging our grandkids future, had completely destroyed our crediblity and goodwill in the world, has encouraged the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (How on earth are we losing a 'who is right' contest with jihadiists?), selling our economy to Halliburton, ignoring global warming, and seems to be using Noam Chomsky's critique of American power as his playbook!  He said it would be easier if it was a dictatorship, and he is doing all he can to take us there.  (That is a liberal tirade--when you see stuff like that in the NY Times, outside of the op-ed section, then you can call it a liberal paper.  But the entire debate (if you can call it that) in this country has moved so far to the right that Nixon would seem like a Democrat and Eisenhower, who warned us about the military industrial complex, would seem like a commie.)




Lordandmaster -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/27/2006 8:59:20 PM)

I'd classify them as overstuffed popinjays, but that's just my opinion.  They never appear in the other liberal publications you listed, and it's no coincidence.  Nicholas Kristof in Mother Jones?  Never.  Don't forget that he was their lead China reporter for years and never could speak a word of Chinese.  (His wife/partner/whatever, Sheryl WuDunn, once did an article about a Chinese factory, claiming that her report was "real" because she was talking to wokers themselves instead of just regurgitating what the Party told her; well, in the accompanying photo, you could see her and the whole factory staff standing under a big red banner that said, in Chinese, "Warmly welcome the foreign guest to No. 3 whatever-it-was factory."  Obviously, she couldn't even read what the sign said.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladychatterley

Dowd, Friedman and Kristof not exactly classifiable




ladychatterley -> RE: LA / NY Times Disclosure (6/28/2006 6:12:32 PM)

As long as you don't trash Krugman, I'm with you.  Krugman, to me, is the only really important writer at the Times, the only one that opens doors and makes me see connections I didn't see before.  His work here (http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/003781.php) and here (http://rozius.blogspot.com/2006/05/paul-krugman-swift-boating-planet.html) and here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103105O.shtml) and here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091905K.shtml) make the Times Select Suscription worthwhile!  (Those are all available to anyone--they aren't membership only pages.)  The man is beyond brilliant!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I'd classify them as overstuffed popinjays, but that's just my opinion.  They never appear in the other liberal publications you listed, and it's no coincidence.  Nicholas Kristof in Mother Jones?  Never.  Don't forget that he was their lead China reporter for years and never could speak a word of Chinese.  (His wife/partner/whatever, Sheryl WuDunn, once did an article about a Chinese factory, claiming that her report was "real" because she was talking to wokers themselves instead of just regurgitating what the Party told her; well, in the accompanying photo, you could see her and the whole factory staff standing under a big red banner that said, in Chinese, "Warmly welcome the foreign guest to No. 3 whatever-it-was factory."  Obviously, she couldn't even read what the sign said.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladychatterley

Dowd, Friedman and Kristof not exactly classifiable





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625