• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT dredges up old lie to play damage control

Chomsky said:
Hey, fair enough. I can respect that. You always struck me as trying your best to be fair and critical.

Now I don't really know, but I do believe at this time that Comey comes across as reasonably sincere.

Barring hard evidence, we all have to make our judgment call on this.

But I must admit, one of the things that causes me to side more with Comey here is Trump's complete lack of credibility. If Trump otherwise appeared sincere and truthful, I might have to move back a bit on the Trump-Comey continuum.

Unfortunately, Trump ceded-away the benefit of doubt a long time ago ...
Click to expand...

It's not really about Trump, it's about what the old media is doing.
Old media is shifting gears to stay alive and they've ceded a great deal of truth telling for $$$$.

At the end of the day, they're a business and need to stay a float as a business.
They been along enough to become a villain, rather than die a hero.
The "trust the media" is a sales pitch.
 
Chomsky said:
But I must admit, one of the things that causes me to side more with Comey here is Trump's complete lack of credibility. If Trump otherwise appeared sincere and truthful, I might have to move back a bit on the Trump-Comey continuum.
Click to expand...

I would like everything he does, and his message would probably be more coherent and able to get more things done. That is not what we have now. Now we have an idiot who babbles on makes crap up and surrounds himself with some of the most corrupt people in the world.

I generally like how agencies like the FCC have been run under trump and the smaller less controversial decisions he has made. What makes him a bad leader is attacking everybody who doesn't like whatever thing he randomly thinks up and says this should be this way, not that way, regardless of the fact that it has been that way for centuries!
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
There is practically no use in replying to such a blinded by the dark response wherein one cannot even fathom what the NYSlimes just did here and for which, like a super hungry flounder, the rancid bait is swallowed hook, line and stinker...
Click to expand...
You do realize that your own complete and utter lack of neutrality makes these comments almost humorous, yes?

Meanwhile, back in the real world: The op-ed is calling out both sides for using inflammatory rhetoric. Claims that conservatives and Republicans have hired Care Bears and My Little Ponies to make their case over the past 5-10 years is beyond ludicrous. And yes, circulating an image of putting targets on political leaders certainly falls into that realm.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I would like everything he does, and his message would probably be more coherent and able to get more things done. That is not what we have now. Now we have an idiot who babbles on makes crap up and surrounds himself with some of the most corrupt people in the world.

I generally like how agencies like the FCC have been run under trump and the smaller less controversial decisions he has made. What makes him a bad leader is attacking everybody who doesn't like whatever thing he randomly thinks up and says this should be this way, not that way, regardless of the fact that it has been that way for centuries!
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree in that Trump has some good general ideas. Absolutely!

But my problem with him is not just one of demeanor, personality, or behaviour, as atrocious as they are. My biggest problem is he is autocratic and authoritarian to the point of being dictatorial, all the while eschewing Constitutional restraint and democratic institutions, whether they be an independent judiciary or federal investigatory agency!

Putin, Duterte, Erdogan. This seem to be the type of leadership Trump respects. Argh! And I make no political hits with Putin in that list, but merely use him as an authoritarian leadership example. This style is the antithesis of our desired transparent, functioning, democratically representative constitutional republic and its complex systems of checks & balances.
 
Visbek said:
You do realize that your own complete and utter lack of neutrality makes these comments almost humorous, yes?

Meanwhile, back in the real world: The op-ed is calling out both sides for using inflammatory rhetoric. Claims that conservatives and Republicans have hired Care Bears and My Little Ponies to make their case over the past 5-10 years is beyond ludicrous. And yes, circulating an image of putting targets on political leaders certainly falls into that realm.
Click to expand...

Hardly, well, not to someone with a rational sense of humor. You see, I don't attempt to insert ambiguity and false neutrality nor hide behind my lean, yanno?

So by that last claim you are showing your willingness to continue to show voluntary solidarity with a debunked notion?



Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Hardly, well, not to someone with a rational sense of humor.
Click to expand...
Caustic != Sarcastic


You see, I don't attempt to insert ambiguity and false neutrality nor hide behind my lean, yanno?
Click to expand...
You also don't see how your overt declarations of bias (which are rampant on this board) makes it basically absurd for anyone to take your claims that "X is biased" all that seriously.


So by that last claim you are showing your willingness to continue to show voluntary solidarity with a debunked notion?
Click to expand...
I'm pointing out that yes, conservatives and Republicans are constantly using inflammatory rhetoric, and that using crosshairs to indicate opponents pretty much fits that bill.

I might add that since the article claims that both sides of the discussion use inflammatory rhetoric, it's hardly the most egregious example of bias ever to be published.




Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
 
Visbek said:
Caustic != Sarcastic



You also don't see how your overt declarations of bias (which are rampant on this board) makes it basically absurd for anyone to take your claims that "X is biased" all that seriously.



I'm pointing out that yes, conservatives and Republicans are constantly using inflammatory rhetoric, and that using crosshairs to indicate opponents pretty much fits that bill.

I might add that since the article claims that both sides of the discussion use inflammatory rhetoric, it's hardly the most egregious example of bias ever to be published.




Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

First, caustic does not equal sarcastic. It may be used as an element in something deemed sarcastic if properly utilized. And so that has nothing to do, specifically, with a rational sense of humor. Yanno?

Declaration, open declaration, of one's lean has an intellectual honesty that hiding it generally does not, especially when one pretends otherwise and yet is constantly blatantly expressing.

Be like the many fake news organizations that also pretend neutrality and yet are proven, as in the times excerpt described here in thread, attempted and failed... at least to any of a reasonable mind.

Now please point out where I ever impllied article to contain the, "most egregious example of bias ever to be published."

I merely identified your original false assertions... Might do well to reread my post for better comprehension.



Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
The person to blame for a shooting is the shooter. Everyone spends way too much time hoping that a shooter tweeted or liked something that their political opponent posted online. It's a mental health issue probably in both instances.
 
Visbek said:
I've got a better question. What did the NY Times editorial actually say?

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was edited after the fact. It didn't include that disclaimer originally, and it didn't include it when jmotivator posted.

DCXuDAbUMAARQ_Z.jpg


DCXuRO3UAAA7UU6.jpg
DCXuRhvUIAA6K-C.jpg


But as there IS no connection, it makes absolutely ZERO sense to mention Sarah Palin at all. Yet, they leave that part in, even after acknowledging there's no connection.

They deserve much scorn.
 
Last edited:
Gaugingcatenate said:
This reply is directed almost exclusively to you Ocean, using a post by an undisclosed leaner that yet discloses, with pretty much every post I've come across, himself pretty much an undeniably revealed lefty.

His post here being no exception.



There is practically no use in replying to such a blinded by the dark response wherein one cannot even fathom what the NYSlimes just did here and for which, like a super hungry flounder, the rancid bait is swallowed hook, line and stinker...

The NYS asks, oh so innocently, right, "Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl..."

So they display this event in succinct living, bleeding color, tugging at heart strings, laying the blame by implication by its inclusion right after asking and then indicating probably so. So laying this horrific and outrageous crime at the feet of Sarah P simply by including it making the link but then begging off after they just linked it...as if their now senselessly incensed lefty that is still reading the crap they manufacture, ready to believe whatever confirms their bias, is miles mentally past processing the very bland, noncompetive language of this not being a link, a now forgotten, if ever understood, disclaimer of any true link.

About par for the lying scumbag creative authors of performance art slanted news at the NYSlimes.
,
Click to expand...

I found it interesting the NYT later issued a correction regarding the Palin connection, stating "no connection was ever established".

What is pathetic of these partners of the left in the MSM, relates to how they invent these lies, and then when confronted with their lies, they come back later and correct the lie they knew they were making in the first place.

How many of their followers will read their correction?

This is where the 4th Estate has for the most part, committed suicide.
 
ocean515 said:
I found it interesting the NYT later issued a correction regarding the Palin connection, stating "no connection was ever established".

What is pathetic of these partners of the left in the MSM, relates to how they invent these lies, and then when confronted with their lies, they come back later and correct the lie they knew they were making in the first place.

How many of their followers will read their correction?

This is where the 4th Estate has for the most part, committed suicide.
Click to expand...
It is a self inflicted death in that they have totally done it to themselves.

Nobody is even going to believe them anymore, even if they actually tried to tell the truth and did faithfully start immediately to reapply ethics in their "journalism "

Some here, even though the NYSlimes themselves tried to unlink the link they made to Palin, still believe the original rather than the corrected version.

So I give them a a very limited hat tip for acknowledging truth when it slaps them in the face. Many of their followers have apparently being so abused by the MSM, they don't even feel it when something smacks of truth...they would rather kiss the lie again

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
The NY Times gets no hat tip from me; I don't think they would have published the correction if Jake Tapper and others hadn't called it to account.
 
Visbek said:
You sure about that?

c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636.jpg


That sure looks to me like a map, attributed to Sarah Palin's PAC, putting Giffords in the crosshairs. Just like the NYT said.

Who debunked what, exactly...?
Click to expand...

Looks as if the NYTimes debunked it.

Correction: June 16, 2017
An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly said a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/...ongress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?mcubz=1
 
Visbek said:
You sure about that?

c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636.jpg


That sure looks to me like a map, attributed to Sarah Palin's PAC, putting Giffords in the crosshairs. Just like the NYT said.

Who debunked what, exactly...?
Click to expand...

Jared Loughner (though, according to at least one associate was a former left-winger) wasn't acting on behalf of any political movement we would recognize because he had gone crazy. He was acting on his belief that Grammar was a conspiracy to brainwash and control people. He apparently targeted Giffords because he was upset with her answer in a previous form when he had asked her how we knew if words had meaning.

The attempt to tie him to Palin was, and remains, a smear devoid of supporting evidence. Those who push it are demonstrating that they are uninterested in engaging in honest debate.



Which is why, perhaps, realizing it was on the precipice of a nice little lawsuit, the paper has retracted it's earlier claim.
 
Last edited:
Hey ya'll, remember when an Islamist shot up a night club, called 9/11 to declare himself a soldier of Allah in service of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and so the NYTimes tried to respond by blaming conservative Christians?

Yeah. Good times.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
It is a self inflicted death in that they have totally done it to themselves.

Nobody is even going to believe them anymore, even if they actually tried to tell the truth and did faithfully start immediately to reapply ethics in their "journalism "

Some here, even though the NYSlimes themselves tried to unlink the link they made to Palin, still believe the original rather than the corrected version.

So I give them a a very limited hat tip for acknowledging truth when it slaps them in the face. Many of their followers have apparently being so abused by the MSM, they don't even feel it when something smacks of truth...they would rather kiss the lie again

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The fact that so many are not going to believe them anymore is the real shame. I guess when the MSM is suffering from changes in how people get information, they do whatever they can to attract an audience so they can keep their advertisers happy.

The way they are going, that audience is not going to remain big enough to generate enough cash to pay the bills.
 
Visbek said:
You sure about that?

c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636.jpg


That sure looks to me like a map, attributed to Sarah Palin's PAC, putting Giffords in the crosshairs. Just like the NYT said.

Who debunked what, exactly...?
Click to expand...

Absolutely debunked. There is zero evidence that Loughner even SAW that Palin poster, much less used it as a guide. Nothing in his writing or facebook page said a single word about Sarah Palin.

The NYT has issued a correction saying that some people thought that the poster played a role even though there was no evidence... so congrats, Visbek! You made the papers!
 
Visbek said:
I've got a better question. What did the NY Times editorial actually say?

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
(emphasis added)

Somehow jmotivator omitted the part of the NYT op-ed that pointed out a connection wasn't established.

Hmmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, there should be no question that the ad in question is far less "Give Peace A Chance," and more "Happiness Is A Warm Gun."
Click to expand...


That bolded section was added after the initial editorial was released.
 
Chomsky said:
I hate to stand on someone else's work, but Visbek's post #7 would seem to directly refute your post.

The NYT appears accurate in it's depiction.

Now if you'd like to draw other inferences, that's your prerogative. But the evidence here stands well on its own.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but no connection was ever made between that Palin poster and teh actions of Jared Loughner. THere was never a single shred of evidence that Loughner even saw that poster, or in any of his writings or interviews after the fact that that poster was ever known to him.

You, and Visbek, and the NYT editors seem to have a hard time discerning between evidence was baseless accusation.
 
cpwill said:
Hey ya'll, remember when an Islamist shot up a night club, called 9/11 to declare himself a soldier of Allah in service of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and so the NYTimes tried to respond by blaming conservative Christians?

Yeah. Good times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the NYT is amazingly disgusting in its biases.

Whenever they are faced with even an inkling of potential evidence of right wing violence they run with it and make that the story. When the reality of the story is so stark that they can't possibly avoid the obvious that a crime was perpetrated by one of their protected classes they make sure to do "balanced" reporting by bringing up potential crimes that conservatives have committed as well, inventing them if they have to, as they did here.
 
jmotivator said:
I hate to break it to you, but no connection was ever made between that Palin poster and teh actions of Jared Loughner. THere was never a single shred of evidence that Loughner even saw that poster, or in any of his writings or interviews after the fact that that poster was ever known to him.

You, and Visbek, and the NYT editors seem to have a hard time discerning between evidence was baseless accusation.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if anyone is in a position to claim the shooter ever saw or acted on Palin's cross-hair map.

But there's no denying she created and propagated it.
 
NYT is a symbol of the status quo. It is but an organ of government propaganda. Judith Miller demonstrated that years ago.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not sure if anyone is in a position to claim the shooter ever saw or acted on Palin's cross-hair map.

But there's no denying she created and propagated it.
Click to expand...

I just hope that disturbed individuals who see a Target commercial or ad with its logo aren't "triggered."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom