A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

I'm curious about media sources that are run off of donations

Quote:

Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com,

Quote:

Click here to donate via VeriSign. VeriSign ensures a safe, fast, and trusted method to donate to the MRC through our own website by filling out a simple form.

Click here to donate via Paypal. PayPal is a free, third party online payment service which enables any individual or business with an email address to quickly send and receive payments online.

feels a bit bloggy, and we know tico doesn't go to blogs for news

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Right ... you shouldn't read it either.

I don't read sources such as that, whether reputed to be of the left or the right. I read the online services of major, established newspapers and magazines, such as The New York Times, The Times (London), The Chicago Tribune, Le Figaro, Paris Match, Le Nouvel Observateur . . . all of which have a stake in maintaining their reputation for reporting the news. The same cannot be said of the Freepers or MoveOn, which is why i don't read their stuff.

Yes, The New York Times has a stake in their reputation. One can only hope they will be able to pull it out in the near future.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
blatham: It's a conservative news source.

In their very own words:

Quote:
CNSNews.com is the flagship of the C3 family. Providing hard-hitting, balanced news with a conservative edge, CNSNews.com is the only full-service Internet-based news wire delivering accurate, up-to-the-minute news and views throughout the day and night.

With staff based in Washington, DC, and bureaus in London and Jerusalem, CNSNews.com is poised to cover the news of the day.

If only Salon.com would be as truthful ...

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

tico

You'll likely be considerably more engaging to talk with when you learn, finally, to sniff out the differences between careful and partisan.

I truly hope you don't consider yourself merely careful.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I'm curious about media sources that are run off of donations

As opposed to "subscriptions"? It's a new paradigm, ehBeth. Get in the now.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Yes, The New York Times has a stake in their reputation. One can only hope they will be able to pull it out in the near future.

I suspected, and hoped, you'd take that snotty tack. We know of the problems at The Times because they reported it. I really rather doubt that we'll ever see anything like that from sources such as the one used for this thread.

0 Replies

What the heck, guys. This is just tico's game. It's not at all clear that he comprehends what that game is, but he's happy in it.

0 Replies

This is the only description of this protest that I can find. It is from the Free Republic counter protest group. At 4 to 8 protestors (at best) the entire incident sounds less than overwhelming.

"Opposed to our twelve patriots, the leftists peaked at eight America-hating traitors for a short period, but most of the time they had four or less. In fact this was their most pathetically disorganized attempt yet. Perhaps their pathetic showing was because they were flummoxed from trying to counter our FReeps. Whether we caused their disorganization by dispiriting them, your attendance this coming Friday can help us. Let's demoralize the leftists and prevent them from demoralizing our brave, war-wounded troops in Walter Reed"

. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437364/posts

0 Replies

Yep, I found that too and I think it's from July. Apparently these have been happening since May but all of a sudden are being reported on. Again, no numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was never more than a handful of people.

I think the objective of the story is essentially this:

Quote:

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Just part of the well-oiled slime machine.

0 Replies

Here's an item from the press release announcing the launch of CNS:

Quote:

Orignal reporting from CNS staff --- free of liberal bias

if they only omitted the "liberal" qualification...and used spell-check...

Source

0 Replies

What's next? Protesting funerals a la Fred Phelps?

0 Replies

Maybe advertising on tombstones is next.

0 Replies

That's already history.

0 Replies

:wink:

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Maybe advertising on tombstones is next.

I wouldn't put it past them.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I think these people are stepping over the line. I don't think it is a smart way to get your message across. I think I'd be annoyed no matter what I believed if I saw these people camped out outside the place where I was being treated.

There has to be a better way to make your point.

yep. this lack of good judgement, or even forsight, only hurts the anti-war cause. and i certainly don't want the wounded guys to feel anymore f***ed up than they already do.

i don't think the pro-war (that has such a stupid ring to it...) demonstrators should be there either.

they shrill that the anti-war types are exploiting the wounded and the dead; but they and their big war president are doing the very same thing every day of the week.

0 Replies

Yep. If four idiots show up outside a hospital to protest the war then they ought to be completely ignored. Bringing a counter protest only escalates it and makes sure that the soldiers there notice. Whereas they might not have noticed 4 people standing around with one homemade sign.

0 Replies

Tico, you missed the thread here, then, about the Pentagon putting operational names on the tombstones of Iraqi war dead in Arlington National Cemetary, at times without first securing the consent of the families, huh?

0 Replies

I'd say so.

What makes these people so weird about protest?

0 Replies

Quote:

What makes these people so weird about protest?

If your question asks what I think it does, deb, the answer must sit in whatever determines that some percentage of a human population will so readily agree to be the pawns of authoritarian social organization.

Even in a state/culture such as the US where free speech and dissent are popularly lauded as not merely present but identifiers of advanced liberty and democracy, this other opposing authoritarian tendency runs like a deep river, often quite unglimpsed by those who shout loud the state mythologies even as they behave precisely the converse of those mythologies.

0 Replies

A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know