Some reasons Kerry lost

[varwoche]

At least Dim is consistent. He prefers random, anonymous blogs to the mainstream press.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Jayson Blair...should I go on? Or is the most recent high profile example of faked articles sufficient to rebut your presumption that the Times is not unreliable?

You're the one on record with the extraordinary claims, it is your job to present support for them, not the skeptic's job..

The Times is proven to be unreliable by the very existence of their faked stories....the ball is in your court, and so far all you have done is throw up a straw man argument to deflect attention from your unreliable sources.

The postion of 'The Times said it, I believe it, and that settles it' is the only topic on the table.

I don't need to memorize very word in your Bible to declare it bogus, I don't need to read all of your Chick tracts to dismiss them, and I certainly don't need to defend the position that your NY Times is not a reliable source...stick to that issue, why don't you?

Jayson Blair was one guy. A journalistic behemoth such as the NY Times has too great a reputation to be completely discredited by a single reporter.

I am presenting my evidence for my extraordinary claims. It's time to stop dishing out ad hominem attacks against the NY Times and for you to tell me what you find wrong with the reporting practices involved in the production of the article that would warrant the story's complete disregard. Tell me what the system of checks and balances in the journalistic community has had to dissent to regarding this substantial article. If it were so inaccurate as you purport it to be, wouldn't every other paper and television station in the country be on it by now?

You have a very distorted picture of reality if you think the veracity of the statements to be found in a Chick tract are in any way comparable to the veracity of the statements to be found in even the most obscure newspaper. Jack Chick and the Bible do not hide the fact that they expect their premises to be taken on blind faith. That's very different from an organization that at least claims to be diligent in the researching of the stories they run.

And why don't you need to defend your belief that the NY Times is so bad that an analogy could be drawn between it and the Bible when it comes to the dissemination of untruths?

For good measure, here is a story corroborating practically everything in the NY Times article written by the president of ISIS, David Albright.

 

[BPSCG]

[derail]BPSCG & Jocko,
Didn't anybody ever point out to you guys that Twain and Beethoven were both outspoken liberals?[/derail]

Beethoven was an outspoken antimonarchist. If that would make him a liberal today, he'd have a lot of company.

Beyond that, I don't look to Beethoven for political philosophy any more than I look to James Madison for great music.

And Richard Wagner was a virulent anti-semite. Doesn't stop me from loving his operas.

I suppose if Beethoven were alive today, you'd expect him to be touring with Bruce Springsteen in the anti-Bush campaign.

 

[hammegk]

To the Batty one:

I suggest that for Iraq, now, aluminum tubes, nuclear capability, and the general WMD picture is as relevant as a cup of warm spit.

Can't you find something recent to carp about?

 

[Batman Jr.]

To the Batty one:

I suggest that for Iraq, now, aluminum tubes, nuclear capability, and the general WMD picture is as relevant as a cup of warm spit.

Can't you find something recent to carp about?

If Bush did intentionally mislead us into a war costing of an innumerable amount of lives of our servicemen and which threatens to bring financial ruin to our country for many years to come, then I'd say he's committed a most impeachable offense—certainly more impeachable than Bill Clinton lying about oral sex—wouldn't you? And from what I last recall, Bush is still in office, so he can still be impeached, now can't he? I'd say the aluminum tubes are pretty relevant.

You know, instead of dodging legitimate challenges against the president's moral rectitude in order to nurse the wounds that have been inflicted upon your own image of your political judgment, you can actually change sides. This isn't a competition.

 

[hammegk]

If Bush did intentionally mislead us into a war costing of an innumerable amount of lives of our servicemen and which threatens to bring financial ruin to our country for many years to come, then I'd say he's committed a most impeachable offense—

And if grandma had wings she'd fly like a bird.

certainly more impeachable than Bill Clinton lying about oral sex—wouldn't you?

Some would try, except for that darn "if" in your case against Dubya.

BTW, no "if" exists: Clinton lied under oath.

And from what I last recall, Bush is still in office, so he can still be impeached, now can't he? I'd say the aluminum tubes are pretty relevant.

Fine, we can agree to disagree. Troops are dying in a fight for our lives against worldwide terrorism, and all you and your ilk can muster is "what if" scenarios based on Ed knows what that will not change the facts.

You know, instead of dodging legitimate challenges against the president's moral rectitude in order to nurse the wounds that have been inflicted upon your own image of your political judgment, you can actually change sides. This isn't a competition.

Try demonstrating his moral rectitude problems rather than suggesting he "might" have them.

 

[Batman Jr.]

And if grandma had wings she'd fly like a bird.


Some would try, except for that darn "if" in your case against Dubya.

BTW, no "if" exists: Clinton lied under oath.


Fine, we can agree to disagree. Troops are dying in a fight for our lives against worldwide terrorism, and all you and your ilk can muster is "what if" scenarios based on Ed knows what that will not change the facts.


Try demonstrating his moral rectitude problems rather than suggesting he "might" have them.

Read the David Albright article or the NY Times article. This isn't a mere "if."

 

[Patrick]

Beethoven was an outspoken antimonarchist.

He removed Napoleon, as I'm sure you know, as the dedicatee of the "Eroica" symphony on learning Napoleon had crowned himself emperor. On the other hand, he composed "Wellington's Victory" in honor of the victor at Waterloo, who was of course the military representative of the British monarchy.

 

[hammegk]

Read the David Albright article or the NY Times article.

I read Albright: Wonder who he voted for?

This isn't a mere "if."

Doesn't take much to convince you that the arcanities of the actual situation are now so clear to all. Sounds like an ongoing, and unprovable, argument one way or the other.

Of course, for Bush haters, it *must be* the smoking gun PROOF that he "lied".

Wouldn't you be better off joining Ion & Kevin in worrying about how Dubya stole this election thru voting chicanery?

 

[Batman Jr.]

I read Albright: Wonder who he voted for?


Doesn't take much to convince you that the arcanities of the actual situation are now so clear to all. Sounds like an ongoing, and unprovable, argument one way or the other.

Of course, for Bush haters, it *must be* the smoking gun PROOF that he "lied".

Wouldn't you be better off joining Ion & Kevin in worrying about how Dubya stole this election thru voting chicanery?

Yeah, so all of these scientists from the DOE and IAEA (who went on a fact-finding mission to Iraq and found how tubes to the exact same specifications were being used for conventional rockets) all have ulterior motives, and Bush is just a complete angel. You create a bigger, more incredulous conspiracy trying to defend the president. Oh, and here's another article from a source well-trusted around these parts, CSICOP. Note the third paragraph of "Part III: UCS Bests Marburger on Most Other Issues, Too." If that doesn't get you to start thinking, then you've already been too brainwashed.

 

[crimresearch]

Jayson Blair was one guy. A journalistic behemoth such as the NY Times has too great a reputation to be completely discredited by a single reporter.

I am presenting my evidence for my extraordinary claims. It's time to stop dishing out ad hominem attacks against the NY Times and for you to tell me what you find wrong with the reporting practices involved in the production of the article that would warrant the story's complete disregard. Tell me what the system of checks and balances in the journalistic community has had to dissent to regarding this substantial article. If it were so inaccurate as you purport it to be, wouldn't every other paper and television station in the country be on it by now?

You have a very distorted picture of reality if you think the veracity of the statements to be found in a Chick tract are in any way comparable to the veracity of the statements to be found in even the most obscure newspaper. Jack Chick and the Bible do not hide the fact that they expect their premises to be taken on blind faith. That's very different from an organization that at least claims to be diligent in the researching of the stories they run.

And why don't you need to defend your belief that the NY Times is so bad that an analogy could be drawn between it and the Bible when it comes to the dissemination of untruths?

For good measure, here is a story corroborating practically everything in the NY Times article written by the president of ISIS, David Albright.

Jayson Blair and his rewards for fraudulent reporting typifies the NY Times approach to accuracy..the fact that they do get *some* articles right, in no wise makes them reliable, given their culture of deceit. A culture that in many ways IS like that of the Church.

And I remain amused at your insistence that the mere act of being skeptical of one of your cherished icons makes someone else 'pro-Bush' in any way shape or form.

Until you can get past the 'if you are questioning us, you must be a Republican' logical howler, even an ultra liberal skeptic is wasting their time trying to reach you with logic.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Jayson Blair and his rewards for fraudulent reporting typifies the NY Times approach to accuracy..the fact that they do get *some* articles right, in no wise makes them reliable, given their culture of deceit. A culture that in many ways IS like that of the Church.

Yes, well I guess you're just going to use your stupid "they had Jayson Blair writing for them" defense because the content of the article checks out. Let me tell you something: most every newspaper has or has had Jayson Blairs in their midst.

Here's another attempt at convincing you though:

$20,000 bonus to official who agreed on nuke claim
Energy Dept. honcho ordered dissenters at Iraq pre-briefing to 'shut up, sit down'

This comes from WorldNetDaily, which is known to have a good deal of conservative bias, so I wouldn't exactly expect them to play loose with the facts when it comes to things that have the potential for being deleterious to the president.

 

[BPSCG]

Let me tell you something: most every newspaper has or has had Jayson Blairs in their midst.

And the reason you know this is...?

FWIW, for anyone who likes to see a daily summation of the Times's misdeeds, check out TimesWatch.

 

[varwoche]

There is hardly any need for apologetics for anything whose source is 'an extensive 3 page article from the New York Times'...the presumption is already upon the person citing that to prove it isn't another forged piece of crapola.

Granted, NYT deservedly got a black eye for the Blair thing, and CBS deservedly got a black eye over the Killian memo.

Still, it's a bit susprising when some on this forum discount these sources entirely, seemingly in favor of random blogs and the like. Especially this poster, since he enjoys playing the role of uber skeptic.

So crim, based on the following link, I take it that you favor unheard of bloggers, and the WA Times (owned by the esteemed Rev Moon), over the NY Times?
thread

 

[BPSCG]

Still, it's a bit susprising when some on this forum discount these sources entirely, seemingly in favor of random blogs and the like. Especially this poster, since he enjoys playing the role of uber skeptic.

I agree; suggesting the NY Times is completely untrustworthy because of the Jayson Blair thing is like saying U.S. intelligence on Iran's nuclear program is completely untrustworthy because they got the WMD thing wrong.

Not that anyone on these forums would suggest anything like that...

 

[crimresearch]

You've got to admit that these reactionaries who can only see the world as 'anyone who dares to confuse us with the facts must be one of them' are nothing if not amusing.

 

[varwoche]

I agree; suggesting the NY Times is completely untrustworthy because of the Jayson Blair thing is like saying U.S. intelligence on Iran's nuclear program is completely untrustworthy because they got the WMD thing wrong.

Not that anyone on these forums would suggest anything like that...

Sounds like we're in agreement.

Edit to add: If you're implying me, then I expect better BPSCG -- you're entirely off base.

 

[Batman Jr.]

And the reason you know this is...?

There was a Newsweek report back during the whole Jayson Blair debacle chronicling all of the big plagiarists and forgers and how just about every major paper has had to deal with them. Even Joseph Pulitzer himself was caught doing some underhanded reporting work! Crimresearch doesn't even want to take into consideration the article I've presented simply because of Blair it seems. It's become such a source of animosity for him that he's ignored the articles from ISIS and WorldNetDaily (which certainly doesn't have some liberal agenda) that point toward many of the same, more malevolent explanations. If we were talking about some crazy tabloid, then yes, I could understand where he's coming from. But this is The New York Times, and to consider it thoroughly debunked is really stretching things (and that's why I took it that he was a conservative, because I've only heard conservatives say things like that about the newspaper thus far).

 

[BPSCG]

Sounds like we're in agreement.

Edit to add: If you're implying me, then I expect better BPSCG -- you're entirely off base.

No, I had someone else in mind. Refer to the "Boy who cried wolf" thread and see if you can guess who I meant.

 

[crimresearch]

There was a Newsweek report back during the whole Jayson Blair debacle chronicling all of the big plagiarists and forgers and how just about every major paper has had to deal with them. Even Joseph Pulitzer himself was caught doing some underhanded reporting work! Crimresearch doesn't even want to take into consideration the article I've presented simply because of Blair it seems. It's become such a source of animosity for him that he's ignored the articles from ISIS and WorldNetDaily (which certainly doesn't have some liberal agenda) that point toward many of the same, more malevolent explanations. If we were talking about some crazy tabloid, then yes, I could understand where he's coming from. But this is The New York Times, and to consider it thoroughly debunked is really stretching things (and that's why I took it that he was a conservative, because I've only heard conservatives say things like that about the newspaper thus far).

What an amazing string of specious logic...

I'm coming up on a couple of thousand posts here, repeatedly speaking out against slavery, intolerance, racism, war, extremism, and hate mongering, as well as promoting progressive causes, but you can 'jist tell' that I must be a conservative because I pointed out that the NY Times has a track record of being unreliable?


With mind reading abilities like that, you should get in line behind Varwoche to apply for the JREF million.

I never said that I was basing my opinion of the Times credibility on a single incident...(or on anything other than their track record)in fact, I specifically asked you how many incidents it would take for you to admit that they are unreliable.
I also very clearly separated the single issue of the Times' record of deceit from any analysis of your aluminum tubes premise...

So far, even in the face of links to many more cases than Blair's, you remain adamant, and so far you have nothing more than blind faith, straw men, and ad hominem arguments on your side.

You are welcome to your true believer status, but I remain........ skeptical.