The NY Times broke the law it advocated
-
Less than three months after the Times excoriated the court for weakening
restrictions on issue ads, the paper made a huge and patently illegal contribution to
MoveOn.org's issue advocacy ad. The American Conservative Union, under Chairman David
Keene, immediately filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, noting that
the purchaser of the ad, MoveOn.org Political Action, is a registered multicandidate
political committee regulated by the mare's-nest of federal laws and rules the
multiplication of which has so gladdened the Times.
...
FEC regulations state: "The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a
charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a
contribution." Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 in a calendar year;
corporations such as the Times are forbidden to make any contributions.
...
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., defending the decision to run the ad, said: "If we're
going to err, it's better to err on the side of more political dialogue. . . . Perhaps
we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice
to people." Bauer notes that Sulzberger might have used words from a Supreme Court
decision: "In a debatable case, the tie is resolved in favor of protecting speech."
And: "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the
censor." So spoke Chief Justice John Roberts in the Wisconsin decision that
Sulzberger's paper denounced because it would magnify the voices of, among other
things, "wealthy corporations." The Times Co.'s 2006 revenue was $3.3 billion.I'm sure the left, which fancies itself to be the great defenders of free speech, has to be a little bit embarassed that their greatest mouthpiece has so blatantly broken a law that was designed to restrict free speech. Especially when that law was advocated by the left (and the NY Times) and despised by true conservatives. So then who are the true advocates of free speech?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Less than three months after the Times excoriated the court for weakening
restrictions on issue ads, the paper made a huge and patently illegal contribution to
MoveOn.org's issue advocacy ad. The American Conservative Union, under Chairman David
Keene, immediately filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, noting that
the purchaser of the ad, MoveOn.org Political Action, is a registered multicandidate
political committee regulated by the mare's-nest of federal laws and rules the
multiplication of which has so gladdened the Times.
...
FEC regulations state: "The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a
charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a
contribution." Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 in a calendar year;
corporations such as the Times are forbidden to make any contributions.
...
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., defending the decision to run the ad, said: "If we're
going to err, it's better to err on the side of more political dialogue. . . . Perhaps
we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice
to people." Bauer notes that Sulzberger might have used words from a Supreme Court
decision: "In a debatable case, the tie is resolved in favor of protecting speech."
And: "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the
censor." So spoke Chief Justice John Roberts in the Wisconsin decision that
Sulzberger's paper denounced because it would magnify the voices of, among other
things, "wealthy corporations." The Times Co.'s 2006 revenue was $3.3 billion.I'm sure the left, which fancies itself to be the great defenders of free speech, has to be a little bit embarassed that their greatest mouthpiece has so blatantly broken a law that was designed to restrict free speech. Especially when that law was advocated by the left (and the NY Times) and despised by true conservatives. So then who are the true advocates of free speech?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
-
Less than three months after the Times excoriated the court for weakening
restrictions on issue ads, the paper made a huge and patently illegal contribution to
MoveOn.org's issue advocacy ad. The American Conservative Union, under Chairman David
Keene, immediately filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, noting that
the purchaser of the ad, MoveOn.org Political Action, is a registered multicandidate
political committee regulated by the mare's-nest of federal laws and rules the
multiplication of which has so gladdened the Times.
...
FEC regulations state: "The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a
charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a
contribution." Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 in a calendar year;
corporations such as the Times are forbidden to make any contributions.
...
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., defending the decision to run the ad, said: "If we're
going to err, it's better to err on the side of more political dialogue. . . . Perhaps
we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice
to people." Bauer notes that Sulzberger might have used words from a Supreme Court
decision: "In a debatable case, the tie is resolved in favor of protecting speech."
And: "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the
censor." So spoke Chief Justice John Roberts in the Wisconsin decision that
Sulzberger's paper denounced because it would magnify the voices of, among other
things, "wealthy corporations." The Times Co.'s 2006 revenue was $3.3 billion.I'm sure the left, which fancies itself to be the great defenders of free speech, has to be a little bit embarassed that their greatest mouthpiece has so blatantly broken a law that was designed to restrict free speech. Especially when that law was advocated by the left (and the NY Times) and despised by true conservatives. So then who are the true advocates of free speech?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
The Commies?
Me: Can you see the "up" arrow? User:Errr...ummm....no. Me: Can you see an arrow that points upwards? User: Oh yes, I see it now! -Excerpt from a support call taken by me, 08/31/2007
-
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
It's hard to quantify the net positive effect anti-American propaganda has on the enemy. But I'd venture to guess at least dozens.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How many Americans died when this law was broken?
It's hard to quantify the net positive effect anti-American propaganda has on the enemy. But I'd venture to guess at least dozens.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Try exactly none. 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!
-
Try exactly none. 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!
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
-
The Commies?
Me: Can you see the "up" arrow? User:Errr...ummm....no. Me: Can you see an arrow that points upwards? User: Oh yes, I see it now! -Excerpt from a support call taken by me, 08/31/2007
martin_hughes wrote:
The Commies?
No, the NY Times already proved that they are not.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Less than three months after the Times excoriated the court for weakening
restrictions on issue ads, the paper made a huge and patently illegal contribution to
MoveOn.org's issue advocacy ad. The American Conservative Union, under Chairman David
Keene, immediately filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, noting that
the purchaser of the ad, MoveOn.org Political Action, is a registered multicandidate
political committee regulated by the mare's-nest of federal laws and rules the
multiplication of which has so gladdened the Times.
...
FEC regulations state: "The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a
charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a
contribution." Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 in a calendar year;
corporations such as the Times are forbidden to make any contributions.
...
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., defending the decision to run the ad, said: "If we're
going to err, it's better to err on the side of more political dialogue. . . . Perhaps
we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice
to people." Bauer notes that Sulzberger might have used words from a Supreme Court
decision: "In a debatable case, the tie is resolved in favor of protecting speech."
And: "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the
censor." So spoke Chief Justice John Roberts in the Wisconsin decision that
Sulzberger's paper denounced because it would magnify the voices of, among other
things, "wealthy corporations." The Times Co.'s 2006 revenue was $3.3 billion.I'm sure the left, which fancies itself to be the great defenders of free speech, has to be a little bit embarassed that their greatest mouthpiece has so blatantly broken a law that was designed to restrict free speech. Especially when that law was advocated by the left (and the NY Times) and despised by true conservatives. So then who are the true advocates of free speech?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Aperently the backer of moveon.org also funded Hansen way back when he was launching his GW alarmism to the world.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
martin_hughes wrote:
The Commies?
No, the NY Times already proved that they are not.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Ah, the nihilists then.
Me: Can you see the "up" arrow? User:Errr...ummm....no. Me: Can you see an arrow that points upwards? User: Oh yes, I see it now! -Excerpt from a support call taken by me, 08/31/2007
-
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.