The New York Times: America %&*$@

[American_Jihad]

I should have a thread on my home town rag, don't cha think...

The New York Times: America Sucks

October 16, 2013 By nicholeh

...

But when it ventured into a larger discussion of evil, the moral confusion and contempt for America that characterize leftism were on display.

The article contains a breathtaking paragraph that exemplifies both qualities. After noting that atrocities against groups of people are often the result of the dehumanization of the victimized group, the writer gives four such examples:

“The Hutus in Rwanda called the Tutsis cockroaches, the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats. Japanese invaders referred to their Chinese victims during the Nanjing massacre as ‘chancorro,’ or ‘subhuman.’ American soldiers fought barbarian ‘Huns’ in World War I and godless ‘gooks’ in Vietnam.”

This paragraph is noteworthy for its use of false moral equivalence to justify its anti-Americanism.

...

Lumping America’s actions in those two wars with the other three examples is typical of the left’s defamation of America and of its facile use of false moral equivalence.

But that is how a generation of Americans who have attended college — including most likely the Times author herself — have been taught to think. And that is what is taught to your child today at the left’s seminaries, our universities:

Nazis, Hutu murderers, Japanese rapists, Americans at war: All pretty much the same.

The New York Times: America Sucks | FrontPage Magazine

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I dropped my subscription to the Times back in 1985

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

 

[Peterf]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

Indeed

-Geaux

 

[Sallow]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

Say what?

What America did in Vietnam was an atrocity.

More then three million people died as a direct result of American actions.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

That blurb has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

Say what?

What America did in Vietnam was an atrocity.

More then three million people died as a direct result of American actions.

And more Viet-Cong should of died. We should of bombed Hanoi to rubble

-Geaux

 

[Sallow]

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

Say what?

What America did in Vietnam was an atrocity.

More then three million people died as a direct result of American actions.

And more Viet-Cong should of died. We should of bombed Hanoi to rubble

-Geaux

I rest my case.

 

[Peterf]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

Say what?

What America did in Vietnam was an atrocity.

More then three million people died as a direct result of American actions.

I disagree. American involvement in Vietnam came about from good, if mistaken, motives. Atrocities by US forces were very much the exception. US Vietnam veterans deserve respect. More, much more, than the sainted JFK who got them into it.

 

[Pennywise]

The Jew York Times wonders why their subscriptions have tanked. Yes in a lot of ways America sucks, thanks to far left wing Jewish interests and Zionist foreign policy.

 

[Peterf]

Nutters hate the truth very much. Much of what America has done sucks. We ought to won it.

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

That blurb has nothing to do with the subject.

Oh yes it has! - given the NYT's silly suggestion that the German soldiers in WWI were 'dehumanised'.

(A blurb is a quote from a review printed on the back of a book to temp purchasers. Ever seen one? - a book I mean).

 

[Pennywise]

We would have never been in Viet Nam had we not sided with Soviet Communists near the end of WW2, and had we not subdivided Europe. That's a fact.

As for ridiculing your war enemy, not only is it normal, you have to do it. Dehumanization is the only way to get men to kill on order of their government. Here's a good primer on the subject of Zionist influence in the US- [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501]The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: 9780374531508: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Peterf]

The Jew York Times wonders why their subscriptions have tanked. Yes in a lot of ways America sucks, thanks to far left wing Jewish interests and Zionist foreign policy.

I wish you Nazi anti-semites would at least be consistent. Those 'Jewish interests' are usually described as 'far right' not 'far left'.

Floreat Israel.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Equating America to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is not the 'truth' but a big fat lie.

The idea that US troops or their French and British allies - who had been fighting the Huns for 3 1/2 years before any Americans fought in France - 'dehumanised' the German soldiers is laughable. My father served in the Royal Army Medical Corps from 1914 to 1918. He (and every other source including those in Germany) said that wounded Germans got exactly the same care in British Casualty Clearing Stations and base hospitals as did British soldiers. Oh - and the Germans treated our wounded well with but a few exceptions.

That blurb has nothing to do with the subject.

Oh yes it has! - given the NYT's silly suggestion that the German soldiers in WWI were 'dehumanised'.

(A blurb is a quote from a review printed on the back of a book to temp purchasers. Ever seen one? - a book I mean).

Yeah....I took some license with the term blurb there....sue me.

The NYT contributor suggested that calling people names like "Hun" and "ghook" dehumanizes them. Simple.

 

[Peterf]

We would have never been in Viet Nam had we not sided with Soviet Communists near the end of WW2, and had we not subdivided Europe. That's a fact.

As for ridiculing your war enemy, not only is it normal, you have to do it. Dehumanization is the only way to get men to kill on order of their government. Here's a good primer on the subject of Zionist influence in the US- The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: 9780374531508: Amazon.com: Books

Why is it that people who have no idea what they are talking about are so fond of declaiming "That's a fact"?

 

[Pennywise]

We would have never been in Viet Nam had we not sided with Soviet Communists near the end of WW2, and had we not subdivided Europe. That's a fact.

As for ridiculing your war enemy, not only is it normal, you have to do it. Dehumanization is the only way to get men to kill on order of their government. Here's a good primer on the subject of Zionist influence in the US- The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: 9780374531508: Amazon.com: Books

Why is it that people who have no idea what they are talking about are so fond of declaiming "That's a fact"?

The war in Viet Nam that claimed 50,000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands of other lives, was fought to reduce the communist foothold in the world. That communist power grab would have NEVER had the chance to be were it not for the US getting cozy with the Reds and handing them half of Europe post WW2.

And that is a fact.

 

[Peterf]

We would have never been in Viet Nam had we not sided with Soviet Communists near the end of WW2, and had we not subdivided Europe. That's a fact.

As for ridiculing your war enemy, not only is it normal, you have to do it. Dehumanization is the only way to get men to kill on order of their government. Here's a good primer on the subject of Zionist influence in the US- The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: 9780374531508: Amazon.com: Books

Why is it that people who have no idea what they are talking about are so fond of declaiming "That's a fact"?

The war in Viet Nam that claimed 50,000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands of other lives, was fought to reduce the communist foothold in the world. That communist power grab would have NEVER had the chance to be were it not for the US getting cozy with the Reds and handing them half of Europe post WW2.

And that is a fact.

Here is a counter-fact. Half of Europe was not 'handed' to the USSR; they took it by force of arms. The only way of getting them out would have been for the US to go to war with the USSR. A political impossibilty. Truman, a new and untried - and pretty well unknown - President, would have had no chance if he had tried to persuade a war weary country to start a brand new conflict.

And it would have been a war America would have had to fight on its own. Britain was broke, short of men and exhausted. (I know. I was there).

 

[American_Jihad]

Is the New York Times hiding its online mistakes?​

By Howard Kurtz
October 16, 2013


In the old days, newspapers published once a day, and if they made a mistake, they ran a clarification or correction the next day.

In the online era, stories are constantly being updated, improved and tweaked, often without the reader’s knowledge.

Is that just the torrid pace of online journalism today, or is it sneaky?

New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan thinks the paper hasn’t been straight with its readers. The paper sent out an alert late last week that said: “Obama rejects Republican proposal for short-term debt limit plan.”

But the Times totally overstated the case. As Politico noted, the story was soon updated to reflect that the two sides were still talking.

Standards editor Philip Corbett told Sullivan that no correction was warranted because a specific, early plan had been rejected.

...

Polling Pile-On

I thought I detected a slight change in tone in the TV punditry as Thursday’s default deadline nears.

It has gone from “it’s all the other side’s fault” to “it’s the other side’s fault but holy moly, are we really going to plunge off this cliff?”

...

Shutdown Slams

Barbara Boxer clearly went too far. The Democratic senator made an unfortunate analogy about battered spouses.

“When you start acting like you’re committing domestic abuse, you’ve got a problem,” Boxer said. “I love you dear, but, you know, I’m shutting down your entire government. I love you dear, but I’m going to default and you’re going to be weak.”

Fox’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck angrily responded.

“You know who should be infuriated? Women who have suffered from domestic abuse,” she said.

It would be nice if pundits on the left would challenge their own side on this kind of talk.

...

Megyn’s Miracle

The president of MSNBC said it could not have happened, but it did. Megyn Kelly increased her audience by 100 percent in a single night.

“Nielsen has conducted an investigation into the ratings for Megyn Kelly’s new Fox News Channel show, ‘The Kelly File,’ following grousing by MSNBC chief Phil Griffin,” the New York Daily News reports. “The investigation has revealed that the numbers for Kelly are accurate…Last Tuesday, the day after its debut, ‘The Kelly File’ doubled its audience, crushing ‘The Rachel Maddow Show,’ its MSNBC competition.

Griffin called for a probe, dubbing the ratings feat ‘impossible.’”

...

Is the New York Times hiding its online mistakes? | Fox News

 

[American_Jihad]

Bloomberg: New York Times Ad Revenues Tank​

Lowest point since 1998.

11.1.2013 |Truth Revolt |

The New York Times has hit its lowest print and digital advertising numbers since 1998. As Bloomberg reported:

“Both print and digital advertising at the newspaper decreased about 3 percent in the third quarter, the company said last month, signaling that the total amount fell below $140 million. That’s the lowest level since at least 1998, when the Times began reporting the ad revenue of its individual papers.

The Bloomberg piece provides not only some of the grim numbers, but outlines the New York Times “comeback effort,” especially via new online marketing strategies. The Times has attempted to invest in online video advertising, and opened up videos in order to compete with less restrictive sites. But up to this point, it's been too little, too late. No doubt the advent of technological change has hampered the Times. But its heartfelt leftism and ridiculously biased reporting surely hasn't helped. Somehow, the New York Post has done just fine.

Bloomberg: New York Times Ad Revenues Tank | Truth Revolt