0
   

Liberial Bias from the NYT.

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:26 pm
Baldimo wrote:
You really think they do this for everyone?

Why not? And how do you know they wanted Monday in the first place? It's your allegation that something fishy is going on here. That makes it your job to prove it. Until you do, it doesn't matter what we, the so-called liberal loonies, think.

woiyo wrote:
The reaction of the Times to Rudy's ad is what I find and the "loonies" refusal to address it, is what I find disgraceful.

You haven't established that apart from hot air, Giulliani's ad contains any substance for us to address. Once you do, maybe you'll get a satisfactory reaction.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:28 pm
So, let me get this straight....

woiyo wrote:
there is no way for me to prove that Move-On has "scheduled their ads on a stand-by basis", nor can I disprove the comment from the Times Employee.


So, what you're really saying is....nothing. The very article you posted debunks the very premise of your post.

You're taking the 9/11 conspiracy theorists position that mere innuendo and suspicion should take place over proof or fact. Seems logical enough.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:29 pm
How dare those wacky leftist at Moveon.org .... and here…
The Bush administration would never use a military general to spin false information about the war in Iraq! (Powell wasn't an active general when he spoke at the Security Council!)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:33 pm
woiyo wrote:
The quote did not come from Parados. It came from the NY POST's article which I posted.

I don't mean to quibble, but you appear to be confused about the source of your own post. It's from the Boston Globe, not the New York Post, as you can glean from the copyright notice you copied and pasted.

Quote:
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company

Link to Boston Globe Article
Some extra candy from the article that you didn't see fit to quote:

The Boston Globe wrote:
Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:36 pm
Thomas wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
You really think they do this for everyone?

Why not? And how do you know they wanted Monday in the first place? It's your allegation that something fishy is going on here. That makes it your job to prove it. Until you do, it doesn't matter what we, the so-called liberal loonies, think.

woiyo wrote:
The reaction of the Times to Rudy's ad is what I find and the "loonies" refusal to address it, is what I find disgraceful.

You haven't established that apart from hot air, Giulliani's ad contains any substance for us to address. Once you do, maybe you'll get a satisfactory reaction.


What I have established is the Times so far will not run the ad at the same price they gave to Move On. The article only suggests that Rudy's ad was a rebuttle to Move On. I have not oferred an opinion as to the content of Move On's ad as it is irrelevant to the main point.

The point is the Times seems to curry favor to left wing organizations and have a different set of rules for anyone else.

Am I wrong?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:38 pm
woiyo wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
You really think they do this for everyone?

Why not? And how do you know they wanted Monday in the first place? It's your allegation that something fishy is going on here. That makes it your job to prove it. Until you do, it doesn't matter what we, the so-called liberal loonies, think.

woiyo wrote:
The reaction of the Times to Rudy's ad is what I find and the "loonies" refusal to address it, is what I find disgraceful.

You haven't established that apart from hot air, Giulliani's ad contains any substance for us to address. Once you do, maybe you'll get a satisfactory reaction.


What I have established is the Times so far will not run the ad at the same price they gave to Move On. The article only suggests that Rudy's ad was a rebuttle to Move On. I have not oferred an opinion as to the content of Move On's ad as it is irrelevant to the main point.

The point is the Times seems to curry favor to left wing organizations and have a different set of rules for anyone else.

Am I wrong?


Yes - read the article you copied and pasted:

"Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid."

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:41 pm
woiyo wrote:
What I have established is the Times so far will not run the ad at the same price they gave to Move On.

Let me repeat from your own source, the Boston globe article:

The Boston Globe wrote:
Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.


woiyo wrote:
Am I wrong?

Yes you are, and not only that. The embarrassing thing is that you could have easily figured that out by yourself. All you had to do was read your own source -- the whole Boston Globe article that you quoted.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:42 pm
Another own-goal from a blowhard dummy.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:43 pm
Oh damn, Cycloptichorn! Must you always write my posts before I do?!
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:44 pm
Thomas wrote:
woiyo wrote:
What I have established is the Times so far will not run the ad at the same price they gave to Move On.

Let me repeat from your own source, the Boston globe article:

The Boston Globe wrote:
Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.


woiyo wrote:
Am I wrong?

Yes you are, and not only that. The embarrassing thing is that you could have easily figured that out by yourself. All you had to do was read your own source -- the whole Boston Globe article that you quoted.


That quote came from the Globe link YOU provided. What I posted earlier today did not contain that quote (which seems odd)..

So who is the "SOMEONE" anyway?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:51 pm
woiyo wrote:
That quote came from the Globe link YOU provided. What I posted earlier today did not contain that quote (which seems odd)..

It seems odd indeed, since you, too, quoted from the Globe article (See the copyright notice if you don't believe me.) Either you deleted decisive information from the article yourself in an attempt to smear the Times. Or some middlemen did the smearing and truncating, and you uncritically copied and pasted from them. Both are signs of weakness in any serious discussion.

PS: Whatever it is that you copied and pasted did have this to say.

woiyo's undisclosed source wrote:
"The Giuliani campaign asked for the same rate as MoveOn, and we said you'd have to go standby," she said. She said the advertising department told the campaign the ad would run in today's A section.

So even by the text you posted, it is clear that the Giuliani campaign asked the New York Times for the same condidtions as MoveOn, and got them.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 02:07 pm
woiyo wrote:
woiyo wrote:
The Boston Globe wrote:
Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.


That quote came from the Globe link YOU provided. What I posted earlier today did not contain that quote (which seems odd)..



It's right in the middle of your post on the first page of this thread.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2852848#2852848

You're probably the only one who can tell us why you didn't see it.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 02:13 pm
You're right ehBeth -- woiyo messed up his copying and pasting a bit there. I also didn't notice the passage before you pointed it out to me, so let me highlight it in its context for him:

woiyo wrote:

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Nation RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Share on Digg
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Nation stories |
Latest national news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Giuliani, a Republican presidential candidate, sought - and received - space in today's editions of the newspaper for an ad in which he praises Petraeus. Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.

MoveOn's ad ran in the A section on Monday, the first day of Petraeus's highly anticipated testimony to Congress about the progress of the Iraq war. Congressional Republicans and others widely condemned the ad, saying it impugned Petraeus's integrity and was unpatriotic.

Source
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 02:20 pm
Care to comment, Woiyo?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 02:43 pm
Funny stuff.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 02:45 pm
Yes, but really entertaining.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 02:54 pm
http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/Measurement/Volume/VolumeImages/popcorn.gif
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 04:15 pm
woiyo wrote:
So who is the "SOMEONE" anyway?

I'm not sure, but I suspect he's related to "them."
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 05:29 pm
hmmmm

so what's Rudy supposed to do about his ad at NewsMax (my favourite email/s of the day) .... now that the facts have been revealed ...

Quote:
Dear NewsMax Reader:

MoveOn.org, well-known for its character assassinations on Republicans,
participated in a character assassination on an American General.

Before General David Petraeus could gave even a word of testimony to Congress about our brave men and women in uniform overseas in Iraq, MoveOn.org, aided by an enormous discount at the New York Times,

[blahblah rudydoody blahblah]

Please review my ad here and make a contribution to set the record straight.



~~~

Who do I contribute to, to set the record straight about Rudy's ad, now that he's been aided by an enormous discount at the New York Times?

Cool
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2007 12:03 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
The conservatives are still hiding behind an "anything goes in a time of war"philosophy...except, they mean, they can cook the books, lie, torture, and deceive in a time of war, but you can't criticize anyone for doing any of those things becasue we are at war?

Since when was "being at war" a justification to stifle criticisms of the handling of the war.
Hell, if someone is caught lying or deceiving, especially in a time of war, newspapers should be lining up to have the facts exposed.


As usual, you and your other "loonies" on the left fail to address the issue of the post.

IMO, the NY Times can NOT be taken as an objective source of news since it has demonstrated in this case that they has a strong bias and will curry favors to Left Wing organizations while not doing the same for the opposing point of view. This add should have been run on their editorial page.

The NY TIMES can not be considered a reliable source of information.

That is the point of this post.


Every piece of news you read has some bias or other; the NYT is no more or less reliable then most of them.

Cycloptichorn


True. So why won't the Defenders of The Grey Lady simply admit this?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 04:34:00