If true, the NEW YORK TIMES is far worse than they claimed Rove/Libby were.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Liability, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    A story linked from Drudge claims that the scumbags who run The New York Slimes are intent on publicizing the names of covert operatives in Afghanistan.

    SOS – RED ALERT – New York Times About to Put American Troops in Deadly Peril - Big Journalism

    Obviously, I don't think we can yet say if this is true or not. but if it is true, then how are they any better than the "evil" Rove and Libby supposedly were for supposedly "outing" non-covert analyst Valerie MRS. AMBASSADOR JOSEPH 'Sweet Tea Sipping' WILSON Plame?

    Will the left rise up in unison to vigorously condemn the fucking NY Slimes?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    Come on libs. Step up to the plate. If this story is true and the fucking NY Slimes does this horrible thing, then surely you must all condemn it at least as much as you roundly codemned Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for supposedly outing top secret covert agent Valerie Plame (and truthfully, more so).

    WHERE is your condemnation?

    Nothing?

    Silence?

    That's it?

    As I thought.
     
  3. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Is it true?

    If so they can go to jail and it is wrong to do it.

    They have medicine to prevent premature false expostulation.
     
  4. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    It's from Andrew Breitbart's site. One of the biggest right wing liars in the media today. He's behind O'Keefe and was once again exposed for lying by posting the whole fake video over the spitting and N word calling incident.

    I'll take it with a grain of salt until some real journalists verify it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    "Each and every American should be outraged." typical right wing hysteria

    But now it turns out that Breitbart was fooled by the ACORN pimp hoax and mistakenly assumed, after watching deceptively edited clips from his protégé James O'Keefe, that O'Keefe strolled into ACORN offices wearing the outlandish pimp outfit. -mediamatters
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2010
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    I am waiting for Liability to be outraged that I am not outraged about something that has not even happened.
    And likely will not happen.
     
  7. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    Is it true? Good question. In fact, that's why I asked it the way I did. For, as I correctly noted, we don't yet know if it's true.

    But if you think anybody would prosecute The Fucking NY Slimes for publishing state secrets, then you are the most easily fooled lib posting on the interwebz. They determine unilaterally which laws involving the publication of state secrets they will bother complying with, and they cry "CENSORSHIP!" and "help! help! my First Amendment Rights are being attacked" as soon as they DO violate such a secrecy law -- historically speaking of course.

    And besides, this is the era of the Obama Administration. We all know full well that nobody in that godforsaken cesspool would EVER prosecute a newspaper for willfully violating the law over such a matter. Give a fucking 9/11/2001 terror suspect a criminal trial? Sure. THAT those retards have no issue with -- or not enough of an issue, anyway.

    But prosecute The Fucking New York Fucking Slimes? Not a chance in France.

    And I do wonder what you and your fellow libs will say about the outing of these men and women by The SLIMES should the Breitbart piece turn out to be accurate?
     
  8. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Yeah sure it is? that must be why you posted this?

    "WHERE is your condemnation?

    Nothing?

    Silence?

    That's it?

    As I thought.
    "
     
  9. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    ^ A typically vapid response from a typically vapid lib. :cuckoo:

    First off, I don't get outraged by lib hypocrisy. I fully expect it.

    Secondly, I don't expect libs to BE outraged by such behavior (if committed) engaged in by the iconic New York Slimes. Your outrage (meaning lib outrage) is reserved for the alleged "outing" of alleged "covert operatives" when such alleged "outing" is committed (supposedly) by a Republican Administration official or by anyone even tangentially related to the Booooosh Administration.

    Thirdly, there is no valid FACTUAL basis for your contention that the illegal behavior of The Slimes is something which "likely will not happen." You do realize, don't you, that The New York Slimes has done such things before? If history is the guide, then the probability is that The New York Slimes WILL once again do it.

    And finally, IF it happens, you might feign "outrage." But you probably will only give it a half-hearted "tsk tsk." Most of the unduly partisan libs will "see" nothing wrong in the behavior of that disgusting rag of a newspaper.
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    Yes. Those words, as a lib like you must realize, do not exist in the ether unattached to "context." You libs love to pontificate about "context."

    So, to provide the MISSING "context," you hypocritical dishonest liberal gasbag, you would have had to quote the entire post, not just the final half. It's not a surpise that you made the "editorial" decision to mislead by omitting the prefatory language.

    THIS is what I ACTUALLY wrote, you dishonest lib hack:

    [I took the liberty of highlighting the significant portion you dishonestly chose to omit.]

    It is interesting and very revealing that in your rush to paint a false picture, you were so glaringly obvious in your dishonesty. There could be a future for you working at The New York Times. Unless they go under.
     

Share This Page