|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
12-28-2014, 08:40 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
NY Times Calls for Criminal Prosecution of Dick Cheney.
|
12-28-2014, 08:45 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,908
|
|
I happen to agree, but being that it's in the NYTimes probably warms Cheney's heart (if that's even possible). The Times holds very little sway any more, and when it does, it's as a whipping boy for the right.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
12-28-2014, 08:48 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
I happen to agree, but being that it's in the NYTimes probably warms Cheney's heart (if that's even possible). The Times holds very little sway any more, and when it does, it's as a whipping boy for the right.
|
Opinions...opinions...are like assholes. Everybody's got one.
But maybe we've found something you find as repulsive than Bibi, eh? It's that idiotic NYT editorial board. Who knew?
Maybe we should wait for the fucking Wall St. Journal to call for prosecutions. Wouldja find some petty, opinionated beef about that?
|
12-28-2014, 09:00 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,908
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana
Opinions...opinions...are like assholes. Everybody's got one.
But maybe we've found something you find as repulsive than Bibi, eh? It's that idiotic NYT editorial board. Who knew?
Maybe we should wait for the fucking Wall St. Journal to call for prosecutions. Wouldja find some petty, opinionated beef about that?
|
Settle down, Ike. The Times piece itself was an opinion piece.
I read both the Times and WashPost every day, but I no longer believe that the "Gray Lady" is the country's newspaper of record with "all the news fit to print," though I greatly prefer it to the WSJ. IMO, the WashPost is far superior to either.
FWIW, I find the NYTimes editorials reflexively and predictably liberal (just as the WSJ's are reflexively and predictably conservative), though I find their opinion pieces a bit more balanced than their editorials (I like Krugman and Brooks and Dowd cracks me up). Their editorials' reflexively liberal bent results in me discounting them in favor of something a bit more analytical and balanced (e.g., WashPost, Economist). YMMV.
Their diminished standing in the world of journalism will result in this particular editorial having about as much impact as a fart in a windstorm.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 12-28-2014 at 09:20 AM.
|
12-28-2014, 09:43 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
I happen to agree, but being that it's in the NYTimes probably warms Cheney's heart (if that's even possible). The Times holds very little sway any more, and when it does, it's as a whipping boy for the right.
|
There's an app for that.
John
|
12-28-2014, 03:41 PM
|
|
Persona non grata
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
|
|
I'd like to see him have to give the heart back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG8WqEyXIyc
__________________
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
|
12-29-2014, 07:12 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Settle down, Ike. The Times piece itself was an opinion piece.
I read both the Times and WashPost every day, but I no longer believe that the "Gray Lady" is the country's newspaper of record with "all the news fit to print," though I greatly prefer it to the WSJ. IMO, the WashPost is far superior to either.
FWIW, I find the NYTimes editorials reflexively and predictably liberal (just as the WSJ's are reflexively and predictably conservative), though I find their opinion pieces a bit more balanced than their editorials (I like Krugman and Brooks and Dowd cracks me up). Their editorials' reflexively liberal bent results in me discounting them in favor of something a bit more analytical and balanced (e.g., WashPost, Economist). YMMV.
Their diminished standing in the world of journalism will result in this particular editorial having about as much impact as a fart in a windstorm.
|
Many thanks to the new PC print media critic for his thoughtful analysis of the worldwide impact of the NYT.
PS - how's about you shove your directives up your ass and restrict yourself to providing behavioral input to those who got stuck with having to listen to it, like your children. Nobody answers to you here, finn.
|
12-29-2014, 08:38 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,908
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana
Many thanks to the new PC print media critic for his thoughtful analysis of the worldwide impact of the NYT.
PS - how's about you shove your directives up your ass and restrict yourself to providing behavioral input to those who got stuck with having to listen to it, like your children. Nobody answers to you here, finn.
|
You're the one who went off on a childish rant. Tired of getting your ass handed to you?
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 12-29-2014 at 08:46 AM.
|
12-29-2014, 09:23 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Tired of getting your ass handed to you?
|
Finn puts on his Zeke mask and starts wanking himself off in front of everybody.
Meantime the NYT proves to have more balls than any other major media source in this fucking country. Even though finn thinks the Times is a useless waste of perfectly good trees.
Last edited by Ike Bana; 12-29-2014 at 09:26 AM.
|
12-29-2014, 10:53 AM
|
|
Sir Lord Vader of Cheam
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lewiston, ID
Posts: 5,065
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana
Finn puts on his Zeke mask and starts wanking himself off in front of everybody.
|
More like all over you, out of the sheer boredom of reading your posts.
THE NYT doesn't have cajones, it's desperate for readership. When that occurs, you pander to the perceived base. Darth Cheney isn't going to be prosecuted nor should he be (not that I am a fan of Enhanced Interrogation). Even if you believe (erroneously) that Cheney acted criminally, I'd invite you to think strategically, not tactically: this is a Gerald Ford situation at best.
But, of course, there was no U.S. illegality here as the DOJ itself provided cover for EI providing CIA operatives with legal authorization for techniques including forced nudity, waterboarding, sleep deprivation and stress positions. Sadly, I believe the CIA likely misrepresented the scope and (lack of?) effectiveness of the program to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which provided the legal authorizations, and much worse occurred.
That's an issue but, again, it's not Cheney's.
Is he Darth Cheney? Yes. Do I like him? No. Do I like any of this? Not particularly.
But the NYT is weak (and apparently dumb) for even suggesting the idea. That's why this was posted as an opinion piece and not a facts driven expose.
__________________
"American" means calling everyone who disagrees with you a traitor?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.
|