N.Y. Times retaliates against Cheney, Rumsfield

[schweitz]

If this is true it is disgusting. :mad:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/30/151423.shtml?s=ic

[JustRalph]

This may have gone just a little too far..............

[dccprez]

That's just ASS.

If this is accurate then the NYT blows.

[Suff]

Hey.. Moe, Larry and Curley! Dont you think you might, just might, quite likely, would consider or ponder about perhaps checking out the article before you comment? geeesh.......


http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/travel/escapes/30michaels.html

[dccprez]

Hey.. Moe, Larry and Curley! Dont you think you might, just might, quite likely, would consider or ponder about perhaps checking out the article before you comment? geeesh.......


http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/travel/escapes/30michaels.html

Er...No.
Takes all the fun out of it.

With love,
Shemp

[bigmack]

Hey Suff - You've been to this diner berfore haven't ya?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbUVFtKKkZI&search=three%20stooges

Speakin of which: Favorite Diner of all time?

[Buckeye]

The NY times is a Cheney Mouthpiece? What did you expect them to write? I expect them to write anything that's negative. They can do that because there's a Free Press. All they have to do next in convince the majority of Americans that they're right. Good luck on that. You see, the majority of Americans have their own ideas about things. That's just the way Democracy works.

[Tom]

Hey.. Moe, Larry and Curley! Dont you think you might, just might, quite likely, would consider or ponder about perhaps checking out the article before you comment? geeesh.......


http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/travel/escapes/30michaels.html


I read it and I agee - it was a pos worthless article - without purpose, other than top devulge private info. Article of that obvious poor quality and zero value are routineley rejected by high school papers.
I certainly hope some legal or otherwise actions are taken agais the worst fish wrapper in the nation - a disgrace of a paper and disgraceful people who run it. "All the news that fits our agenda!"
It is papaer like the times that proivde good arguments against freedom of the press.

[Suff]

Huh,... Been meaning to get back to this. Turns out that Rumsfeld had given permission to the author to take pictures, and warmly welcomed the review of his pride and joy house.

But where are the Retractions? especially from Newsmax? What a group they are.

We should make an agreement now... NO ONE CAN USE NEWSMAX AS A SOURCE for information on Pace advantage.

------------------------------------------------------

That Rumsfeld and Cheney owned lavish vacation homes in St. Michaels has been a well-reported story since last year: the photographer took the photo in question with the explicit permission of Donald Rumsfeld.
What do you think has happened since then? Have prominent right-wing bloggers who egged their more thuggish far-right readers on by promoting this bogus and fabricated "story" issued corrections? Have they spoken up against members of their blogosphere who posted personal information or made threats against the photographer, reporters, or New York Times editors involved?

Nope.

Michelle Malkin has so far issued no correction, and is for now ignoring the fact that, once again, a story she hyped and over-the-top actions she incited were based on false information. Again.

Powerline has issued no correction, and is similarly ignoring the episode.

RedState, on the other hand, has posted three responses to being called out for their promotion of a faked story. Twice to be outraged at my naughty words and insolence; once to defend Online Integrity by saying that while they are signatories, it doesn't apply in this case either, so there.

And yet, in all those posts, no correction as to the facts of their puffed-up story. None. And quite notably in the string of posts -- no condemnation of the actions of the conservative bloggers in question.

NewsMax? No correction. No condemnation of the thuggery.

Front Page Magazine? No correction. No condemnation of the thuggery.

[lsbets]

Funny SUff, I read those exact words on Kos this morning. Shouldn't you at least put the quote in quotes? ;)

[melman]

Ah Yes the New York Times, former home of star reporter Jason (let's make up a story) Blair. And of course none of the senior editors of that paper had any idea that Blair was making them up. :lol:

[betchatoo]

Ah Yes the New York Times, former home of star reporter Jason (let's make up a story) Blair. And of course none of the senior editors of that paper had any idea that Blair was making them up. :lol:

What has that got to do with this thread?

[Suff]

Funny SUff, I read those exact words on Kos this morning. Shouldn't you at least put the quote in quotes? ;)

there's a line...see it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Indicates body of story..

Now, back to the hate... ok. Like I asked,,,, Retraction?

address the errors. or don't

[Suff]

What has that got to do with this thread?

exacta-mundo.


That is their modus-operandi. When confronted with truth.... dance, bob and weave...


Jason Blair? Yea ok... we'll start another thread about him.

Right now we are talking about the hate speech of the right wing....

[Suff]

Funny SUff, I read those exact words on Kos this morning. Shouldn't you at least put the quote in quotes? ;)



RedState, on the other hand, has posted three responses to being called out for their promotion of a faked story. Twice to be outraged at my naughty words and insolence; once to defend Online Integrity by saying that while they are signatories, it doesn't apply in this case either, so there.



read....third party. Clear reference I was quoting a 3rd party!

Now....back to the hate.

[melman]

Bob and Weave uh?? then the old tired line repeated endlessly "hate speech" . Geez must have struck a nerve.

[PaceAdvantage]

That is their modus-operandi. When confronted with truth.... dance, bob and weave...

Now I'm confused. I thought that's what you guys do....

[lsbets]

I cant' stop laughing - SUff wants to keep a thread on topic! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Suff]

will anyone address the issue? I beg....

[Steve 'StatMan']

I didn't read any articles involved in this argument, but newspapers have been running features on public officials and celebrities and their favorite vacation spots, etc. for years. So without glancing, I didn't concider this as a set-up or an invitation to attack these elected officials and their families.

However, concidering the concerns over plots and potential terrorism occuring in this country, I don't necessarily think it was a good idea to write about these things, but I'm confident that the Secret Service and/or CIA is quite vigilent in guaring our highest officials and their families.

It wasn't until Cindy Shithead, er Sheehan gained great popularity through the media of her very publicly announced and widely reported presidential stalkings and campout protest 'Happenings', that divulging where public officials spend their away-from-the-Capital time became a potential pox on those in the community where our public officials visit.

[Tom]

Right now we are talking about the hate speech of the right wing....


I thought we were talking aobut the underhanded crap the NYTimes pulled? :confused::rolleyes:

OK, I'l address it.
Kust becasue they asked Dumsfeld for approval to do the story aobu this house doens't mean he thought they should be broadcasting his address and directions to everyone. It's like, hey, this is Rummy's house - nice place. Here is his wife naked in the shower. Nice.....uh, shower!

[betchatoo]

I thought we were talking aobut the underhanded crap the NYTimes pulled? :confused::rolleyes:

OK, I'l address it.
Kust becasue they asked Dumsfeld for approval to do the story aobu this house doens't mean he thought they should be broadcasting his address and directions to everyone. It's like, hey, this is Rummy's house - nice place. Here is his wife naked in the shower. Nice.....uh, shower!

Tom: the real point is that it wasn't underhanded. Rummy knew exactly what they were doing. It was a conservative on-line paper (talk about an oxymoron, on-line paper?) who decided to take it out of context and blow it out of proportion. Give an apology...not going to happen.

[Tom]

I doubt he knew exactly what they were doing.

It didn't fit the pattern of most NYTimes stories:

a) politically motiviated
b) fabrications

Besides, why would anyone take an apology from them seriously? :bang: