Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 16, 2006.
Whoa. Talk about throwing chum in the water....
Gotta admire the NYT editorial board. Already under fire, they've chosen to turn up the attack on the Bushies instead of backing down. This doesn't sound like just another anti-Bush editorial; it reads more like something Martin Luther would've nailed to the Church door.
And it will definitely be red meat for the conservatives. Tomorrow, the Limbaughs, Hewitts and Coulters of the world will be shouting, "See? We told you! The NYT is out to get Bush! They're the worst traitors in the whole elite liberal media empire!"
it took "only" 6 years for the times to figure it out. i think they're trying to save face in the journalistic world, but my read is that they're internally divided on the matter.
maybe e&p will give us some insight as to what it took to get the editorial out.
here's a dailykos piece illustrating the sloppiness (and apologist) "work" the nytimes has been doing for a few years. seems jayson blair (remember him?) was just a symptom.
So.... I've been wondering...
Would a military/judicial coup be an improvement or is it just me?
I don't know if BushCo planned this, but they certainly have taken advantage of the situation. If this was really about terrorism, we would have done things completely differently. Bin Laden determined to attack, pulling troops from Afghanistan to go somewhere else on tenuous evidence, giving the rest of the world a reason to hate and not trust us, allowing torture and warrantless spying/imprisonment, not actually securing our ports and borders, underfunding anti-terrorist programs and departments, proving we wouldn't be ready for another attack via FEMAs response to Katrina... I could go on, but I'm depressing myself.
Wonder how people would feel if we were attacked again after giving up all those rights for no real reason.
Good point. The NYT has not exactly earned a lot of credibility the last few years.
Doesn't make the editorial invalid or wrong...but it does make it look uncharacteristically bold and on-target.
I saw one of their head honchos on a Sunday morning talk show last week, defending their decision to publish the bank-monitoring story. And now this editorial. Two such items do not equal an anti-establishment crusade, but it'll be interesting to see if they continue in this direction.
However, they'd better make sure they have their ducks in a row.
With a rubber stamp Republican Congress, it seems that our only true system
of checks and balances comes from public pressure.
I'm glad The New York Times is standing up for The United States Constitution
and The Bill Of Rights.
In these terms (expanding the powers of the presidency, and therefore government), not to mention the explosion in government spending, is it any wonder that fewer and fewer true conservatives are able to continue to support Bush?
The problem is that true political conservatives who care very much about protecting The Constitution and The Bill of Rights have been lumped together
with religious conservatives who tend to believe that everyone should
accept their personal interpretations of right and wrong.
Of course this administration has been milking it for all it's worth with
all the charm and deception of the 700 Club.
They do that to the other side too. Anyone who dislikes Bush and his failed policy might as well be Michael Moore. Or a terrorist sympathizer at the extreme. I laugh a little when true conservatives are put into that ultra "liberal" category, but it's a nervous laughter.
McCarthyism on steroids.
He would be proud.
Today Joseph Wilson quoted George Orwell
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
No, he was quoting my previous sig.
It really is amazing how close Orwell was to what's going on today.
Double speak, Big Brother etc.
If one revisits all those classic "cautionary tales", not only Orwell's, the inescapable conclusion is that they were co-opted by the villains of the genre and repurposed as pages of a horrific totalitarian playbook.
edit: Is it really so amazing? After all, we live in a scientific age...
How exactly did you find this thread considering it is from 2006?
Why exactly (and I MEAN EXACTLY) is that of any interest to you or anyone else?
Because you made the post in this thread, and we are trying to discern the relevance of your post to this thread, and why you thought to resurrect a nearly 7 year old thread.
Well, I was thinking the exact same thing. So apparently, there is interest.
Same here. And it's just general curiosity. Geez macmesser, chill out.
I'll play this straight, even though I don't think I owe you, nor the previous poster, the right time. Unless of course you are the board commissars.
I've been kicking back this evening after a rather grueling day, quaffing a few glasses of chianti after dinner and amusing myself by surfing my favorite forum. Why this post? Must have been some kind of psychological reaction on my part. I used to, quite stupidly it turns out, freely express my contrarian observations on forums such as these. In this case apparently VERY stupidly, because you "don't ***** where you eat," as the saying goes. Lately, however, and for some unfathomably strange reason, I have felt my better judgement kick in and have been decidedly inhibited in expressing my thoughts and feelings about matters even remotely political. Don't know why; one of those strange things. What happened tonight can be accurately attributed to too much wine. It was a reaction to chronically worrying too much about being misunderstood by… whomever. I will not issue more such pollution in the future. Please, just forget about it.
Don't actually remember how I found this particular thread, which I had no idea (I think excusably : )) was not current. Must have been serendipity. At my best I am spoiling for a fight, but I agree that this was just downright opportunistic, or so it must seem. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else and wonder if you're sorry that you offended me. Probably not, I'd wager. Is there some lack of social symmetry here or am I just being obstreperous? Dunno.
As to the question of how a "nearly 7 year old thread" could possibly have caught the semi-inebriated interest of a normally intelligent person, I'd suggest that there is a far more trenchant question: why does this thread seem just as fresh today as the day some woebegone miscreant started it?
Damn! Buzz is gone.
Chianti will do that to you.