NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jrn.htm

This is just sick.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jrn.htm

This is just sick.


You listen to Drudge too? :D

New York Times = "The Left"

Well in that case...

New York Times = "The Left"

Well in that case...



To be honest, NYT is a very leftist paper.

I see.
*Loads gun*
Good bye.
*Fires gun*

Here is something more fitting to your wee little mind.

http://www.sfpg.com/animation/liteBrite.html#




Wha? :(

Wha? :(

What the deuce? :confused:

What the deuce? :confused:
I concur.

I posted to the wrong thread due to my three year old twins running around tearing up my house. :)

I posted to the wrong thread due to my three year old twins running around tearing up my house. :)



Oh :D

O.o I have a pair of twin sisters that tear down the bookcase after we pick the mess up :headbang:

The media will attempt to dig up whatever they can on any public official. It’s how they make money, and it’s a healthy part of a free society.

One of the quotes looked like it was taken out of context

The media will attempt to dig up whatever they can on any public official. It’s how they make money, and it’s a healthy part of a free society.



I wouldn't exactly include the word healthy, lol.

Do you have source other than Drudge for that?

Do you have source other than Drudge for that?
Why?

Why?

Trust, but verify.

Why?
You're kidding right? Drudge is not the most reputable of sources. If that is true it's pretty repellent, but I'm witholding judgment until I hear it somewhere else.

Is there no depth to which the left will plunge?

Am I the only one here having trouble trying to make sense of this question?

Am I the only one here having trouble trying to make sense of this question?
Nah--Stinky Head Cheese apparently doesn't have much of a handle on the English language.

Am I the only one here having trouble trying to make sense of this question?
Well, I always thought "plunge" meant for something to go in a downward direction, not movement on an X axis. *shrugs*

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jrn.htm

That's just wrong. I don't care who did it ... it's wrong.

Well, I always thought "plunge" meant for something to go in a downward direction, not movement on an X axis. *shrugs*



I think he was referring to the y-axis. As in, could they stoop lower.

The Nazz, is that all you have? Insults. Ignore the crux of the problem which is that the leftist favorite rag is a slimeball operation.



"Update: For what it's worth, here's a response one of my blog readers, TexasSecyMom, received from the NY Times' executive editor desk...

'As is often the case, the Drudge Report is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened.
Like all major news organizations, we report extensively on the life and career of any nominee or candidate for high public office. Most of the inquiries we make do not report in published articles at all; we would simply be remiss if we did not ask the questions.

In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions. '


TexasSecyMom replied:

'Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the information. Perhaps I would be less inclined to believe someone like Matt Drudge if the New York Times had a better track record when it comes to biased reporting about conservatives. I know that the editorial staff at the NYTimes loves to proclaim its nonpartisanship, but that is just a bunch of baloney. For example, your newspaper has printed almost 60 articles about Air America, all of them glowing with praise for Al Franken and the rest of the staff at the failing liberal radio network. However, there have been exactly ZERO stories about the growing scandal involving Air America and the use of funds intended for the elderly and children to pay the bills. How were Al Franken and everyone else paid nice salaries while losing listeners throughout the country, and did any of that money come from the "loan" from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club? When you decide that you can either admit that you are a liberal newspaper, or you can change the way your stories are reported, then I will actually be able to read the NYTimes without discounting much of what I read.'"

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003176.htm

I wouldn't exactly include the word healthy, lol.
It is healthy. All public figures must be subject to the strictest scrutiny by the public. When someone becomes a politician, they forfeit their rights to privacy. Public service was meant to be, and should be, a burden.

I think he was referring to the y-axis. As in, could they stoop lower.
...I know. I was making a joke.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

It happens on both sides.

At least the Times had the limited decency to put a halt to it before it actually got really bad.

...I know. I was making a joke.

It is the missing 'not' which would normally appear in such a rhetorical question that is confusing me - "Is there no depth to which the left will (not) plunge?" - now that I can understand, but I admit to being all at sea when it comes to " Is there no depth to which the left will plunge?"

The Nazz, is that all you have? Insults. Ignore the crux of the problem which is that the leftist favorite rag is a slimeball operation.
What are you coming after me for? Are you mad because I and another poster reported you for flamebaiting?

I've got my own set of issues with the NY Times--it's been a shill for the right-wing on political issues for the last 7 or 8 years and their reporting has been disgraceful on the Iraq War/WMD stories, the Wen Ho Lee non-scandal, and the fact-challenged reporting they did on Whitewater and what came afterward. Left-wing rag? Please--spare me your Michael Savage induced rantings.

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."
And the Patriot Act isn't?

Funny, I'll bet this guy voted for it, if he's a Texas Republican.

And the Patriot Act isn't?

Funny, I'll bet this guy voted for it, if he's a Texas Republican.



But I don't think Roberts is an evil terrorist who wants to make us all go kaboom :D

I'm sorry, but this is a pathetic thread. If you wanted to present anything with a shred of accuracy, then you should have made the title "Is there any depths to which the NYT won't plunge?"

For some reason, this is a technique that I have observed several times from those of all political persuasions, but especially common amongst the right in recent years. It's lame and immature.

What are you coming after me for? Are you mad because I and another poster reported you for flamebaiting?

I've got my own set of issues with the NY Times--it's been a shill for the right-wing on political issues for the last 7 or 8 years and their reporting has been disgraceful on the Iraq War/WMD stories, the Wen Ho Lee non-scandal, and the fact-challenged reporting they did on Whitewater and what came afterward. Left-wing rag? Please--spare me your Michael Savage induced rantings.I could care less that you flame me and then report me for flaming. You are a small person, to be ignored.

The media will attempt to dig up whatever they can on any public official. It’s how they make money, and it’s a healthy part of a free society.

No, I am sorry but this goes well beyond any heathly portion of unethical behaivor that can be credited to a news organization. It is also not how they make money. This is a prime example as to how they lose money as their circulation is rivaling that of the LA rag Times for fastest freefall. It is also a prime reason that people are disassociating themselves with democrats at such a rapid rate.

am i missing something here? the new york times wanted to see the adoption records on john robert's children and were turned down. this is unbelievably horrible?

where do you guys live where this is the worst thing youve seen? if this bothers you i suggest that you try hard to pay no attention to the rest of the confirmation process. you might end up with a stroke.

But I don't think Roberts is an evil terrorist who wants to make us all go kaboom :D
Well, one out of three isn't bad.

And the Patriot Act isn't?

Funny, I'll bet this guy voted for it, if he's a Texas Republican.

So, either you're saying:

1.) The Patriot Act is evil... except for when it's used to dig up dirt on Republicans, or

2.) Adoption records are a matter of national security.

Care to choose?

Liverbreath']No, I am sorry but this goes well beyond any heathly portion of unethical behaivor that can be credited to a news organization. It is also not how they make money. This is a prime example as to how they lose money as their circulation is rivaling that of the LA rag Times for fastest freefall. It is also a prime reason that people are disassociating themselves with democrats at such a rapid rate.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I just feel that the public has a right to know about the lives of those who represent them.

Wait, is this outrage coming from the same people that spent $10 Million taxpayer dollars to ask a question about a consentual blow job?

Oh yeah, that feels genuine.

I love this:




"Update: For what it's worth, here's a response one of my blog readers, TexasSecyMom, received from the NY Times' executive editor desk...

'As is often the case, the Drudge Report is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened.
Like all major news organizations, we report extensively on the life and career of any nominee or candidate for high public office. Most of the inquiries we make do not report in published articles at all; we would simply be remiss if we did not ask the questions.

In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions. '


TexasSecyMom replied:

'Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the information. Perhaps I would be less inclined to believe someone like Matt Drudge if the New York Times had a better track record when it comes to biased reporting about conservatives. I know that the editorial staff at the NYTimes loves to proclaim its nonpartisanship, but that is just a bunch of baloney. For example, your newspaper has printed almost 60 articles about Air America, all of them glowing with praise for Al Franken and the rest of the staff at the failing liberal radio network. However, there have been exactly ZERO stories about the growing scandal involving Air America and the use of funds intended for the elderly and children to pay the bills. How were Al Franken and everyone else paid nice salaries while losing listeners throughout the country, and did any of that money come from the "loan" from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club? When you decide that you can either admit that you are a liberal newspaper, or you can change the way your stories are reported, then I will actually be able to read the NYTimes without discounting much of what I read.'"

It's like you posted a refutation of your own accusation and then changed the subject to grind another axe because the first was a dead end. You don't need the rest of us at this point, you're a one man band...

Wait, is this outrage coming from the same people that spent $10 Million taxpayer dollars to ask a question about a consentual blow job?

Oh yeah, that feels genuine.

I love this:


It's like you posted a refutation of your own accusation and then changed the subject to grind another axe because the first was a dead end. You don't need the rest of us at this point, you're a one man band...



Who cares about the BJ? Perjury is perjury, no matter what the topic is.

Who cares about the BJ? Perjury is perjury, no matter what the topic is.
So what you're saying is we should be going around spending massive amounts of tax dollars to ask people sensitive personal questions to see if they might perjure themselves? Seems like a good use of the money and our lawmakers time, does it?

Who cares about the BJ? Perjury is perjury, no matter what the topic is.
I think the main case for the opposing argument is that one's personal life should not be within the jurisdiction of a [i]Grand fucking Jury, unless it happens to be physically, mentally or financially harmful to someone else. Since I didn't happen to see Hillary being carted off in a straitjacket [or Bill on a stretcher], I would venture to guess that the entirety of the proceedings were an enormous waste of time.

So, either you're saying:

1.) The Patriot Act is evil... except for when it's used to dig up dirt on Republicans, or

2.) Adoption records are a matter of national security.

Care to choose?

If you get to put words in my mouth, then I should be allowed to put a tire iron in yours. I'm pointing out that it's something of a contradiction to claim that looking for records on your adopted kids is an invasion pf privacy, while the Government's ability to execute the Patriot Act isn't. And yes, it happens to be a horrifyingly evil piece of freedom-hating, thought-abhorrent legislation.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I just feel that the public has a right to know about the lives of those who represent them.

Well, I think it is time for a self examination when that right to know includes shopping for attorneys to help obtain sealed adoption records of a 4 year old and a 5 year old, so they can fish for dirt to smear their father. I am sorry, I am funny that way. I just do not subscribe to my right to know over riding a childs right to have a decent life free from those who would invade it for their own sick purpose. Never mind the fact that it is illegal.

I think the main case for the opposing argument is that one's personal life should not be within the jurisdiction of a [i]Grand fucking Jury, unless it happens to be physically, mentally or financially harmful to someone else. Since I didn't happen to see Hillary being carted off in a straitjacket [or Bill on a stretcher], I would venture to guess that the entirety of the proceedings were an enormous waste of time.



Maybe so, but whether or not he should have been under oath does not detract from the fact that he was.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I just feel that the public has a right to know about the lives of those who represent them.

We have a right to know about those aspects of their lives that affect their job performance.

Remember that we are their employers, and we should act as responsible employers. Prying into the lives of their children doesn't qualify.

Liverbreath']Well, I think it is time for a self examination when that right to know includes shopping for attorneys to help obtain sealed adoption records of a 4 year old and a 5 year old, so they can fish for dirt to smear their father. I am sorry, I am funny that way. I just do not subscribe to my right to know over riding a childs right to have a decent life free from those who would invade it for their own sick purpose. Never mind the fact that it is illegal.
And it is just scummy.

Maybe so, but whether or not he should have been under oath does not detract from the fact that he was.
But that still doesn't justify it. It would be like if you got arrested for shooting someone for breaking into your house [which also happens]: of course it's wrong to shoot someone [or lie] but the fact that someone else was responsible for an even larger breach of morality that made it a necessity makes the second action almost exonerable.

I've got mixed feelings about the issue, in truth. I would not have handled the situation anything like Clinton; I'd have told Ken Starr the truth: I'd tell him that he's a goddamn know-nothing bureaucrat who just wants his time in the sun; he [along with most government officials] are a complete waste of time and taxpayer money, and he has/had no business asking the questions that he did. Adultery [as far as I know] is not actually a crime, so the effects of his actions were negligible as far as I'm concerned, and did not warrant any government investigation. I'd rather my law enforcement community focus on real crime rather than the sexual habits of my president, the details to which I wish I could remain blissfully unaware.

Maybe so, but whether or not he should have been under oath does not detract from the fact that he was.

Lying about a blow job so your wife won't find out is a case for the Peoples' Court. Its prosecution has no place in a mature justice system.

And if you believe it's the principle of the matter that counts, then I'd say you should probably be focusing on more important principles. Do keep in mind that Al Quaeda was plotting the 9/11 attacks while we were screwing around with the stupid Lewinski investigation. It's not like there was nothing better to be worried about.

He'll be nominated and we will all go on.......Im sure the "The Right" would never stoop to this all time low.

;)

Right....Left ...who cares. If the NYT was trying to dig into the adoption records that are private.... they should be ashamed of themselves. This is not a legitimate avenue of research. Think of those children and the mothers who gave them up. The records are sealed for a good reason. They should keep their research to him and him alone. Focusing on his legal decisions and business dealings is just fine. I would protect the right to privacy for Left or Right and anything in between when it comes to their children.

New York Times, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

If I'm reading thsi objectively, Im seeing one Texas Republican, and the most far right-leaning Network News station, call a moderately left newspaper "Biased".

The paper seems to say they had no intention of printing any information about the adopted children, but is it so wrong to see if such an important man went through the proper legal procedures to get them?

Im seeing the pot call the kettle black.

If I'm reading thsi objectively, Im seeing one Texas Republican, and the most far right-leaning Network News station, call a moderately left newspaper "Biased".

The paper seems to say they had no intention of printing any information about the adopted children, but is it so wrong to see if such an important man went through the proper legal procedures to get them?

Im seeing the pot call the kettle black.
What you're really seeing is nothing but a lot of bullshit being thrown in the air in hopes that some of it will fall on someone. Not that I'm surprised.

What you're really seeing is nothing but a lot of bullshit being thrown in the air in hopes that some of it will fall on someone. Not that I'm surprised.


Yah thats kind of the way of it isnt it?

It seems both left and right "news" agencies will all pull the same crap, and then throw it at each other to see if anything sticks.

Speaking as a leftist, the New York Times doesn't speak for me or anybody else on the left besides their editorial staff. The one mainstream news organization that I can say is fully affiliated with one side of the political spectrum is FoxNews, one of your sources for this little gem.

If I'm reading thsi objectively, Im seeing one Texas Republican, and the most far right-leaning Network News station, call a moderately left newspaper "Biased".

The paper seems to say they had no intention of printing any information about the adopted children, but is it so wrong to see if such an important man went through the proper legal procedures to get them?

Im seeing the pot call the kettle black.So I guess the title of the thread is correct after all, as the NYT did nothing wrong with their inquiry, and therefore aren't plunging to any depth.

So I guess the title of the thread is correct after all, as the NYT did nothing wrong with their inquiry, and therefore aren't plunging to any depth.


If I get you correctly, Im not saying that such investigations are entirely ethical, and Im certainly not trying to defend "The Left" or any other group.

What I am saying is that such investigations aere to be expected when you become a person with an important job.
If the man had illegally adopted children, I think the public would have the right to know.
However, such is not the case, and the Times did not print any such article.

Its digging into a sensitive area, but I dont see why Brit Hume, whos opinion on much of anything is not worthy of respect, is making such a big deal, other than to point a finger and try to imply that his employer, Rupert Murdoch, is any higher on the morality scale.

This is just sick. Prying into his life is bad enough, leave the kids out of it