• 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!

U.S. Pushes Back Against Warnings That ISIS Plans to Enter From Mexico

danielpalos said:
I believe we need to enjoin our Commerce Clause simply because we don't have a War on Terror clause.
Click to expand...

They would like us to believe that AUMF is the functional equivalent of a War On Terror Clause. ;)
 
Hamster Buddha said:
It's misleading to talk about their position at the beginning of the war, because that was a different time.
Click to expand...

Not really, if we are talking about whether or not NYT is "liberal" or "conservative", or whether those labels are actually meaningful in the GWOT.
 
Henry David said:
Yes, it's funny how both liberals and conservatives in government got onboard with FISA II to give immunity to telecoms for their crimes assisting the NSA with wiretaps. Even the Great Liberal Barack, then Senator.

That Great Liberal Bastion NYT holds Risen's story in reserve until after the election, which the supposed "liberal" (Kerry?) lost.

Labels are usually misleading and counterproductive to rational analysis.

My point is that NYT supports the status quo, whether war or drugs or virtually any other major issue, and if the status quo happens to be gathering personal information in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so be it.
Click to expand...

Abu Ghraib stories appeared on the front page of the NYT 47 times and was constantly being tied to Bush like he ordered the photos be taken.

Benghazi went largely ignored and Obama was given every excuse in the world, even though he was directly involved in those decisions.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm not going to re-argue the Iraq War, but I will say that just because the newspaper supported the Iraq War (though, I'm sure you could also find some writers from there who opposed it, one being the Miller guy we were referring to earlier) doesn't mean there not a liberal newspaper. This may be hard for you to do, but try to see the world as it was through their eyes; at that time, everyone knew that Saddam had WMDs and we all knew that Saddam was a strategic enemy in the world. After 9/11, there were a lot of people, that weren't willing to sit around and wait, and hope that Saddam wouldn't try to export his WMDs. A lot of people that might of been opposed to the war, were willing to side with it under these circumstances.

However, that doesn't change the fact that they were still very critical of the war effort, almost the moment after the statue had fell. Even in the post you mentioned, it talked how Thomas Friedman had his trepidation. And keep in mind, these are the people that broke the Blackwater Scandal. These are the people that Wikileak went through to release the Afghan and Iraq War Tapes, and the Diplomatic Cables. And These are also the guys that were the go to guys with the exposure of the NSA activities. I'm sorry, if you are pro-establishment, you don't rock the boat this damn much. I get it that they disagreed with you on ONE issue, that doesn't mean their not liberal, it just means their human. And by the way, if you were to rewind time and give them the option, NONE of them would go down that road twice. The real neocons, the ones that really did want this war, are the ones out there still defending it today but instead talking about it as a campaign of liberation.

They may not be as far left as you want, but that don't mean their not left of center. However, if you rather not be objective, then I suppose everyone is to the right of you, and in that case, oh well.
Click to expand...

The NY Times is only slightly left of center, if at all. They are pro-establishment and pro-corporate, which is not compatible with being genuinely liberal.
 
Hard Truth said:
The NY Times is only slightly left of center, if at all. They are pro-establishment and pro-corporate, which is not compatible with being genuinely liberal.
Click to expand...

And that line of thought (not you specifically) is why nothing ever gets accomplished in politics and why I hate the primary system. Thomas Friedman is an devout Keynesian, and there's nothing more anti-corporate that I could think of then that pile of rubbish, and he's their chief economist! We wouldn't of found out about the NSA and all their dirty dealing (well at least the public confirmation wouldn't of been there) without the NYT...

rottenecard_77144396_5z3d8pw797.png
 
Hamster Buddha said:
And that line of thought (not you specifically) is why nothing ever gets accomplished in politics and why I hate the primary system. Thomas Friedman is an devout Keynesian, and there's nothing more anti-corporate that I could think of then that pile of rubbish, and he's their chief economist! We wouldn't of found out about the NSA and all their dirty dealing (well at least the public confirmation wouldn't of been there) without the NYT...

View attachment 67173153
Click to expand...

I don't think the large corporate auto makers had an objection to the Keynsian strategy of bailing them out and subsidizing cash for clunkers.

Reality has a liberal bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom