The NY Times broke the law it advocated
-
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
I absolutely love this. The concept being that no one is the civilized world needs to follow any law unless not following the law can result in an identifiable body count. Thrills me that we're no longer a nation of laws.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
I absolutely love this. The concept being that no one is the civilized world needs to follow any law unless not following the law can result in an identifiable body count. Thrills me that we're no longer a nation of laws.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I absolutely love this. The concept being that no one is the civilized world needs to follow any law unless not following the law can result in an identifiable body count. Thrills me that we're no longer a nation of laws.
More specifically...laws such as these only apply to conservatives. I didn't see anybody defending that anti-abortion group which was fined under the McCain-Feingold bill.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Try exactly none.
If propaganda has no effect, then why are nations so eager to propagate it during time of war? The reality is that it has a positive effect on enemy morale and encourages them to fight longer and harder (as victory seems more achievable). The result is more American deaths. Like I said, it's not something that can be easily quantified, but it certainly has an effect.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Meanwhile, thousands are dying in the desert. But let's not talk about that, let's talk about the mean ol' librulz and their not-very-nice advertisements! BOO HOO!
No laws were broken in invading Iraq (as the invasion was approved by Congress), so your whining is irrelevent. However, the frequent whining over the Patriot Act (which is another law purported by some to be unconstitutional) has yielded no real constitutional violations. McCain-Feingold, however, is yielding more and more. The NY Times, which advocated McCain-Feingold, is already one of its early victims. They have resorted to quoting conservative supreme court justices to defend themselves.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
If propaganda has no effect, then why are nations so eager to propagate it during time of war? The reality is that it has a positive effect on enemy morale and encourages them to fight longer and harder (as victory seems more achievable). The result is more American deaths. Like I said, it's not something that can be easily quantified, but it certainly has an effect.
This was published in an American newspaper. It was also completely true. General Patraeus is a mouthpiece who doesn't believe what comes out of his own mouth. This is not enemy propaganda. You are being ridiculous. The thing is, the right is not fooling anyone. The more you try and make an issue of silly things like this while thousands are dying in the sand, the more ground you lose. The American left has finally given you and your corrupt, vile, despicable cronies enough rope to hang yourselves. I was starting to worry that there was not enough rope in the world. And you know what? We never had to stoop as low as you are stooping right now. You and your whole ideology stink of desperation. Your war, your Patriot Act, your illegal wiretaps, your attorney firings, your gay bathroom sex, your Blackwater, your secret prisons, your torture, your free speech zones, your election irregularities, your no-bid contracts. Stop crying and take your irrelevancy like a man. "The New York Times hates America WAAAAAH!" Your fucking President ruined this country and all you can talk about is partisan bullshit. It would kill you not to go through this post point-by-point, to spend all day just fucking arguing about shacking up and who's a cowboy and blah blah blah while YOUR PRESIDENT is responsible for thousands of deaths every fucking month. Be a man and shut the fuck up for once. Take a good, hard look at yourself and stop fucking up America JUST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT YOU FUCKED UP YOUR BALLOT.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
I absolutely love this. The concept being that no one is the civilized world needs to follow any law unless not following the law can result in an identifiable body count. Thrills me that we're no longer a nation of laws.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Yeah man that's what I meant. There's nothing better to talk about than a $70,000 discount on an attack ad.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I absolutely love this. The concept being that no one is the civilized world needs to follow any law unless not following the law can result in an identifiable body count. Thrills me that we're no longer a nation of laws.
More specifically...laws such as these only apply to conservatives. I didn't see anybody defending that anti-abortion group which was fined under the McCain-Feingold bill.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
That's because no one even mentioned it in the media. Maybe there was a war on or something, who knows, you sick partisan hack.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
If propaganda has no effect, then why are nations so eager to propagate it during time of war? The reality is that it has a positive effect on enemy morale and encourages them to fight longer and harder (as victory seems more achievable). The result is more American deaths. Like I said, it's not something that can be easily quantified, but it certainly has an effect.
This was published in an American newspaper. It was also completely true. General Patraeus is a mouthpiece who doesn't believe what comes out of his own mouth. This is not enemy propaganda. You are being ridiculous. The thing is, the right is not fooling anyone. The more you try and make an issue of silly things like this while thousands are dying in the sand, the more ground you lose. The American left has finally given you and your corrupt, vile, despicable cronies enough rope to hang yourselves. I was starting to worry that there was not enough rope in the world. And you know what? We never had to stoop as low as you are stooping right now. You and your whole ideology stink of desperation. Your war, your Patriot Act, your illegal wiretaps, your attorney firings, your gay bathroom sex, your Blackwater, your secret prisons, your torture, your free speech zones, your election irregularities, your no-bid contracts. Stop crying and take your irrelevancy like a man. "The New York Times hates America WAAAAAH!" Your fucking President ruined this country and all you can talk about is partisan bullshit. It would kill you not to go through this post point-by-point, to spend all day just fucking arguing about shacking up and who's a cowboy and blah blah blah while YOUR PRESIDENT is responsible for thousands of deaths every fucking month. Be a man and shut the fuck up for once. Take a good, hard look at yourself and stop fucking up America JUST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT YOU FUCKED UP YOUR BALLOT.
Apparently you missed the entire point and are now defending that rather deplorable attack ad as something virtuous. It is not. But the point from which you digressed is that the NY Times advocated a law that suppressed political speech and, while they found it perfectably acceptable when that law was wielded against a small group of anti-abortion activists in Wyoming, they apparently didn't care to follow the law themselves. When they were caught violating that same law, they excused their own behavior on the basis that it increased political dialogue (by paraphrasing the conservative chief justice). Naturally, it's perfectly appropriate for leftists to increase left-wing political dialogue while suppressing the speech of conservatives...Right?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Your war, your Patriot Act, your illegal wiretaps, your attorney firings, your gay bathroom sex, your Blackwater, your secret prisons, your torture, your free speech zones, your election irregularities, your no-bid contracts. Stop crying and take your irrelevancy like a man. "The New York Times hates America WAAAAAH!" Your f****ing President ruined this country and all you can talk about is partisan bullsh*t. It would kill you not to go through this post point-by-point, to spend all day just f****ing arguing about shacking up and who's a cowboy and blah blah blah while YOUR PRESIDENT is responsible for thousands of deaths every f****ing month. Be a man and shut the f*** up for once. Take a good, hard look at yourself and stop f****ing up America JUST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT YOU f***ed UP YOUR BALLOT.
You're such a complete, rambling fool. This law, which the NY Times advocated vehemently and which conservatives despise, was signed into being by Bush. You're defending him and you don't even realize it.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Yeah man that's what I meant. There's nothing better to talk about than a $70,000 discount on an attack ad.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Yeah man that's what I meant. There's nothing better to talk about than a $70,000 discount on an attack ad.
You see no problem complaining about the Patriot Act, which has caused far less than $70,000 in damage to the public.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
That's because no one even mentioned it in the media. Maybe there was a war on or something, who knows, you sick partisan hack.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
That's because no one even mentioned it in the media. Maybe there was a war on or something, who knows, you sick partisan hack.
Yeah, you better get back to photocopying fliers condemning honorable 4-star generals as traitors.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Apparently you missed the entire point and are now defending that rather deplorable attack ad as something virtuous. It is not. But the point from which you digressed is that the NY Times advocated a law that suppressed political speech and, while they found it perfectably acceptable when that law was wielded against a small group of anti-abortion activists in Wyoming, they apparently didn't care to follow the law themselves. When they were caught violating that same law, they excused their own behavior on the basis that it increased political dialogue (by paraphrasing the conservative chief justice). Naturally, it's perfectly appropriate for leftists to increase left-wing political dialogue while suppressing the speech of conservatives...Right?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Your war, your Patriot Act, your illegal wiretaps, your attorney firings, your gay bathroom sex, your Blackwater, your secret prisons, your torture, your free speech zones, your election irregularities, your no-bid contracts. Stop crying and take your irrelevancy like a man. "The New York Times hates America WAAAAAH!" Your f****ing President ruined this country and all you can talk about is partisan bullsh*t. It would kill you not to go through this post point-by-point, to spend all day just f****ing arguing about shacking up and who's a cowboy and blah blah blah while YOUR PRESIDENT is responsible for thousands of deaths every f****ing month. Be a man and shut the f*** up for once. Take a good, hard look at yourself and stop f****ing up America JUST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT YOU f***ed UP YOUR BALLOT.
You're such a complete, rambling fool. This law, which the NY Times advocated vehemently and which conservatives despise, was signed into being by Bush. You're defending him and you don't even realize it.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
You just won't quit. Seriously, you have actually, literally saddened me.
-
You just won't quit. Seriously, you have actually, literally saddened me.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You just won't quit. Seriously, you have actually, literally saddened me.
It takes no action on my part to make you sad[^]. But I imagine that the revelation that you were defending George Bush without even realizing it might be saddening for someone with your level of...ahem...character.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
That's because no one even mentioned it in the media. Maybe there was a war on or something, who knows, you sick partisan hack.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
you sick partisan hack.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Yeah man that's what I meant. There's nothing better to talk about than a $70,000 discount on an attack ad.
You see no problem complaining about the Patriot Act, which has caused far less than $70,000 in damage to the public.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
You see no problem complaining about the Patriot Act, which has caused far less than $70,000 in damage to the public.
Define damage. We can debate whether USA PATRIOT has "damaged" personal liberty, the strength of our constitutional protections, and confidence in our country both home and abroad; however, there is absolutely no denying that USA PATRIOT has cost taxpayers substantially more than $70,000. Hell, we probably spent more than that just printing gratis copies for the public and for those in congress who finally got around to reading it long after they voted it in.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
You see no problem complaining about the Patriot Act, which has caused far less than $70,000 in damage to the public.
Define damage. We can debate whether USA PATRIOT has "damaged" personal liberty, the strength of our constitutional protections, and confidence in our country both home and abroad; however, there is absolutely no denying that USA PATRIOT has cost taxpayers substantially more than $70,000. Hell, we probably spent more than that just printing gratis copies for the public and for those in congress who finally got around to reading it long after they voted it in.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Define damage. We can debate whether USA PATRIOT has "damaged" personal liberty, the strength of our constitutional protections, and confidence in our country both home and abroad; however, there is absolutely no denying that USA PATRIOT has cost taxpayers substantially more than $70,000. Hell, we probably spent more than that just printing gratis copies for the public and for those in congress who finally got around to reading it long after they voted it in.
Yes, the Patriot Act has cost quite a bit in taxes. Of course, national is a necessity in times of war, so it serves an actual purpose. It does not, however, so blatantly violate any provisions of the constitution in the way that McCain-Feingold does and its "damages" are theoretical only (even you your "damages" are based in wishful thinking). For the record, as deplorable as that baseless attack ad was, I believe that both MoveOn.org and the NY Times should have had the right to print it without the legal involvement of the federal government. The economic consequences of that sort of low-brow pandering will harm the NY Times' already dwindling circulation enough as it is. That is because I correctly view money as speech. We had this conversation before and, though I insisted that money was necessary for the dissemination of speech and therefore McCain-Feingold (which restricts the dispensation of money for the purpose of disseminating political speech) is blatantly unconstitutional. You insisted that such a concept was absurd. I wonder if since now that, in its second test, McCain-Feingold restricted speech that you undoubtedly find particularly palatable...if you have reconsidered.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Define damage. We can debate whether USA PATRIOT has "damaged" personal liberty, the strength of our constitutional protections, and confidence in our country both home and abroad; however, there is absolutely no denying that USA PATRIOT has cost taxpayers substantially more than $70,000. Hell, we probably spent more than that just printing gratis copies for the public and for those in congress who finally got around to reading it long after they voted it in.
Yes, the Patriot Act has cost quite a bit in taxes. Of course, national is a necessity in times of war, so it serves an actual purpose. It does not, however, so blatantly violate any provisions of the constitution in the way that McCain-Feingold does and its "damages" are theoretical only (even you your "damages" are based in wishful thinking). For the record, as deplorable as that baseless attack ad was, I believe that both MoveOn.org and the NY Times should have had the right to print it without the legal involvement of the federal government. The economic consequences of that sort of low-brow pandering will harm the NY Times' already dwindling circulation enough as it is. That is because I correctly view money as speech. We had this conversation before and, though I insisted that money was necessary for the dissemination of speech and therefore McCain-Feingold (which restricts the dispensation of money for the purpose of disseminating political speech) is blatantly unconstitutional. You insisted that such a concept was absurd. I wonder if since now that, in its second test, McCain-Feingold restricted speech that you undoubtedly find particularly palatable...if you have reconsidered.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
Yes, the Patriot Act has cost quite a bit in taxes. Of course, national is a necessity in times of war, so it serves an actual purpose. It does not, however, so blatantly violate any provisions of the constitution in the way that McCain-Feingold does and its "damages" are theoretical only (even you your "damages" are based in wishful thinking).
Red Stateler wrote:
For the record, as deplorable as that baseless attack ad was, I believe that both MoveOn.org and the NY Times should have had the right to print it without the legal involvement of the federal government. The economic consequences of that sort of low-brow pandering will harm the NY Times' already dwindling circulation enough as it is.
Agreed that they should have had the right to print the ad, although it is certainly not "low-brow pandering" that is hurting their circulation. There is some discussion in advertising circles that the ads never go for the rate-sheet prices, and the NYT, due to their celebrated declining circulation, can't really afford to refuse even cut-rate ad revenue.
Red Stateler wrote:
That is because I correctly view money as speech. We had this conversation before and, though I insisted that money was necessary for the dissemination of speech and therefore McCain-Feingold (which restricts the dispensation of money for the purpose of disseminating political speech) is blatantly unconstitutional.
Travel is also necessary to disseminate speech; does that mean that travel is speech? Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and you remain wrong, as usual.
Red Stateler wrote:
I wonder if since now that, in its second test, McCain-Feingold restricted speech that you undoubtedly find particularly palatable...if you have reconsidered.
Actually, I'm a bit more upset by the house wasting their time with a ridiculous resolution to condemn the ad than any application of McCain-Feingold.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You just won't quit. Seriously, you have actually, literally saddened me.
It takes no action on my part to make you sad[^]. But I imagine that the revelation that you were defending George Bush without even realizing it might be saddening for someone with your level of...ahem...character.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Continuing to support this administration against your own best interests and those of your nation is the saddest thing I have ever seen. While you're not alone in your fear of uncertainty, you are by far the most consistently deluded person I have encountered. What's sadder still is that for every one of you, there's a thousand poor souls with the same ideas who are too ashamed to mention them out loud :(
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
you sick partisan hack.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Oh come on, even you have to know you and Red are marginalized in American politics. My positions are mainstream, there's nothing partisan about my disgust for the Bush administration and American conservatives. The whole world is disgusted with you people.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Yeah man that's what I meant. There's nothing better to talk about than a $70,000 discount on an attack ad.
You see no problem complaining about the Patriot Act, which has caused far less than $70,000 in damage to the public.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Is that what the Bill of Rights going for these days? 70 grand? That's only $18.41 per US death in Iraq. Pretty sweet deal.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
That's because no one even mentioned it in the media. Maybe there was a war on or something, who knows, you sick partisan hack.
Yeah, you better get back to photocopying fliers condemning honorable 4-star generals as traitors.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
What are you talking about? I have not defended the ad, I think it was petty and unnecessary. What I find amazing is that it's getting this much attention. Typical conservative shell game. "Look over here! Our feelings are hurt!" Forget that there are thousands dying in the desert, hundreds more imprisoned without hope of a trial, illegal wiretaps, corruption and cronyism, incompetence at every level. The country is circling the drain and what do you people want to talk about? One page of the New York Times.
-
Continuing to support this administration against your own best interests and those of your nation is the saddest thing I have ever seen. While you're not alone in your fear of uncertainty, you are by far the most consistently deluded person I have encountered. What's sadder still is that for every one of you, there's a thousand poor souls with the same ideas who are too ashamed to mention them out loud :(
We live in an age where ideology, and being right and your opposition wrong, is more important than wisdom or practicality, Chris. It's one of the great failings of our society, and I think it will be our undoing. The head of the CIA himself said we live now in an age when our supposed leaders are scared to death of discussing the real reasons behind modern terrorism, and instead choose to "rally the troops." The founders of the United States envisioned it as one where the leaders were wise, considered men; I cannot say I think many of our current leaders fit that description.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee