The New York Times - They're even more evil now
That's one way to look at it.
The other way is to consider the possibility that if a reasonably intelligent reader can't discern the point of a 200 word message board post after several readings, that maybe the point was not well made.
Anyway, in the future, please provide a recommended marination time that you think is appropriate for your posts, so that we don't waste your time by responding too soon for your tastes.
drummerboy said:
The other way is to consider the possibility that if a reasonably intelligent reader can't discern the point of a 200 word message board post after several readings, that maybe the point was not well made.
And to think of all those previous times I got you to see my point. Anyway, the possibility was already considered: See “so be it.”
Prost!
On top of it, the people he cites in the article are pretty well known white nationalists and general purpose quacks.
And the guy who hired Bret is apparently on the inside track to take over for Baquet. Oh joy.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
I'm not sure what your point is.
For the record, I gave Rosen half a day to marinate in my cranium before responding. If my post was worth no more than 20 minutes of consideration, so be it.
2 weeks of marinating and I still don't get your point. We appear to be talking about different things.
mtierney said:
Don’t like the news? Kill the messenger.
Regardless of the message, sometimes the messenger is a horrible, despicable excuse for a human being.
Red_Barchetta said:
Regardless of the message, sometimes the messenger is a horrible, despicable excuse for a human being.
Regardless that a message/post might be important to the health and welfare of this country; or that your choice of words for your post sound ridiculous for adult conversation on a message board?
are you saying there's something in this thread that might be "important to the health and welfare of this country"?
mtierney said:
Regardless that a message/post might be important to the health and welfare of this country; or that your choice of words for your post sound ridiculous for adult conversation on a message board?
We both have a role here.
Yours is to believe you are taking the high road while pointing out something you think portrays some democrat in a bad light, then making no response when reasonable people inquire about your point.
Mine is to point, laugh, and throw rocks at you. As I've said in the past, I will explain better when I see you in Hell.
re the Stephens piece on Jewish intelligence, the Times has posted a correction and partial retraction:
But they're just making it worse:
The NYT has added a lengthy "editors note" to the top of Bret Stephens column. It includes this claim: "Mr. Stephens was not endorsing the study or its authors’ views, but it was a mistake to cite it uncritically" That is a lie. Stephens was unequivocally endorsing the study pic.twitter.com/SV9GIV4DCD
The NY Times Book Review had a review of the book that Stephens was talking about. It was far more nuanced than his column.
Of course my first reaction to his column was "So what are we Sephardic Jews, chopped liver?
drummerboy said:
OMG
Agreed that the article is largely incoherent (assuming your analysis is based on reason and logic).
Much of the article reads like the lyrics of the 70s, new-age song Aquarius.
Brief excerpt of Aquarius lyrics:
"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
proeasdf said:
Agreed that the article is largely incoherent (assuming your analysis is based on reason and logic).
Much of the article reads like the lyrics of the 70s, new-age song Aquarius.
Brief excerpt of Aquarius lyrics:
"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
They let you out early!
Klinker said:
proeasdf said:
Agreed that the article is largely incoherent (assuming your analysis is based on reason and logic).
Much of the article reads like the lyrics of the 70s, new-age song Aquarius.
Brief excerpt of Aquarius lyrics:
"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"They let you out early!
Hey thanks for your reflexive snark.
RealityForAll said:
Klinker said:
proeasdf said:
Agreed that the article is largely incoherent (assuming your analysis is based on reason and logic).
Much of the article reads like the lyrics of the 70s, new-age song Aquarius.
Brief excerpt of Aquarius lyrics:
"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"They let you out early!
Hey thanks for your reflexive snark.
psst, Switch users before replying.
RealityForAll said:
Klinker said:
They let you out early!
Hey thanks for your reflexive snark.
You’re welcome.
DaveSchmidt said:
You’re welcome.
Chuckle..... That would be something.
meanwhile, Hillary is cleared, once again, of any wrongdoing, this time regarding both the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One.
The Times wrote multiple stories on both subjects during the 2016 campaign. Each piece strongly implying that there was wrongdoing afoot - though if you actually read to the end of piece, there was inevitably no there there.
Which means it was a deliberate editorial decision to sow suspicion. They had the facts. They knew the facts. They even felt a responsibility to print the facts, somewhere at the end of the piece, where (some probably large percentage) of readers don't get to. But they buried the facts as best they could.
Dean Baquet is a horrible person.
=====================================================
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/01/nothingburgers-all-the-way-down
You will be surprised that an investigation into Hillary Clinton turned out to be a baseless snipe hunt:
A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.
John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look intoconcerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.
As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.
EMAILS! has become the most common shorthand for botched coverage of the 2016 election, and given that it was not only a massively overhyped story but probably changed the outcome of the election, that’s not inappropriate. But I think an argument could be made that the single biggest individual case of malpractice was the Times’s Uranium One Story. First of all, it was a collaboration with a Steve Bannon ratfucking operation, which is something the Times absolutely should not have done, and if it insisted on doing it should have taken extra care to make sure it wasn’t being used to push an anti-Clinton narrative that wasn’t justified by the facts. But instead its investigation found no misconduct by anyone and no material conflict of interest, but wrote a lengthy story that strongly implied they had found both things while burying exonerating information long after most people would have stopped reading.
And, what’s worse, this shadows-were-cast-questions-were-raised stuff kept happening — the Times would keep getting tips from various shady right-wing operatives about the Clinton Foundation, find absolutely nothing, but then write up a story strongly implying misconduct by Clinton rather than admit they had been fooled yet again. Of course, it’s hard to expect the country’s leading newspaper to have the integrity of, uh, Donald Trump and Bill Barr’s Department of Justice.
Thumbnail: There was nothing there. There never was anything there. And now we have a handpicked prosecutor from the garden of evil that is this president*’s Department of Justice concluding that there never was anything there. A full election cycle of weaponized ******** was based on air, on nothing.
drummerboy said:
Two years of their"witch Hunt"....and nada..... meanwhile there are about 100 people indicted on Trump side, and a handful are already in jail....who is the real witch here?
I wonder if Jimmy Dore will report on how unfair the Media was to Hillary in this regard? The Times really did fail at this coverage.
Maddow gives a good, brief overview of the Times' Hillary coverage
“The New York Times has something wrong with it when it comes to reporting on @HillaryClinton. They’ve got some sort of unresolved internal issues”- @maddow last night providing an honest assessment
Also take a look at these two @nytimes paragraphs. Republicans have long identified themselves “with economic prosperity,” while Democrats have been “accused of working to keep the poor poor.” This is jaw-droopingly biased and sleazy. pic.twitter.com/8UNTWyjHb7
— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) January 28, 2020
But the new editorial does a nice job of slamming the Senate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/republicans-impeachment-congress.html
The times pays this guy a very healthy salary for his "expertise".
imagine being paid a 1/4 million a year to talk about politics and not knowing who controlled the house and senate for the first two years of the trump admin https://t.co/NS3HPNxY3O
— John Cole (@Johngcole) February 6, 2020
This is a quote from Peter Baker, one of the top political reports at the Times. I was wondering what people think about this. Particularly the last line about right and wrong.
"As reporters, our job is to observe, not participate, and so to that end, I don’t belong to any political party, I don’t belong to any non-journalism organization, I don’t support any candidate, I don’t give money to interest groups and I don’t vote. I try hard not to take strong positions on public issues even in private, much to the frustration of friends and family.
For me, it’s easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong."
Peter Baker, and his editor, should be fired.
If you want to know why Trump tells lies, this is why …
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 5, 2020
… sometimes if you say something untrue you can get a headline, a dek, and a two-paragraph lede repeating your lie only to have it debunked further down. pic.twitter.com/MZyb4MnuIC
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For the record, I gave Rosen half a day to marinate in my cranium before responding. If my post was worth no more than 20 minutes of consideration, so be it.