Wall Street Journal caught in front-page lie

[NYcarbineer]

So you make a claim, which is proved to be incorrect, and that's ok.... or is it that you deliberately lied?

Seems to me you have a really big blind spot. You are unable to see shit on the left, but you'll scream like a banshee about the same shit on the right. And... it's a lie if the guys you believe say it is.

You know what that makes you? Stupid.

Ironic post of the week.

I agree it may be ironic, but having blinders on is prerequisite fo any partisan, left or right.

Which is why maintaining an open mind is supposed to be a virtue.

CG is a troll. Is that a virtue?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you make a claim, which is proved to be incorrect, and that's ok.... or is it that you deliberately lied?

Seems to me you have a really big blind spot. You are unable to see shit on the left, but you'll scream like a banshee about the same shit on the right. And... it's a lie if the guys you believe say it is.

You know what that makes you? Stupid.

Ironic post of the week.

Which is why I have her on ignore. That and her claim not to be on any "side." How's that for irony?

She used to claim she had the 'real' story for everything because she had secret news sources that the rest of us didn't. Of course she couldn't either reveal the sources OR treat us to any uniquely valuable information that she acquired from these secret sources.

 

[daveman]

He just did it, moron.

Here's the real AARP position:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security - AARP.org

Really? I don't see a retraction at all. Your English must be different from the rest of the worlds English.

I'll give you a dollar for every post you can make that argues a point WITHOUT mentioning either you or an opponent.

Same goes for daveman. Naturally, my finances are perfectly safe.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge how ridiculous it is to start a thread complaining about a media outlet's lie by referencing a completely different source.

 

[daveman]

So the WSJ did it, and it's a lie.

ABC, NPR, NYT and CNN report the same story.....and it's just good old honest reporting?

You rarely see such blatant hypocrisy so proudly displayed.

 

[boedicca]

Ironic post of the week.

I agree it may be ironic, but having blinders on is prerequisite fo any partisan, left or right.

Which is why maintaining an open mind is supposed to be a virtue.

CG is a troll. Is that a virtue?

If being a troll is not a virtue, then you're in trouble, bub.

 

[daveman]

Ironic post of the week.

I agree it may be ironic, but having blinders on is prerequisite fo any partisan, left or right.

Which is why maintaining an open mind is supposed to be a virtue.

CG is a troll. Is that a virtue?

"Troll" does NOT mean "someone who posts things that hurt leftists' feelings".

 

[California Girl]

Ironic post of the week.

Which is why I have her on ignore. That and her claim not to be on any "side." How's that for irony?

She used to claim she had the 'real' story for everything because she had secret news sources that the rest of us didn't. Of course she couldn't either reveal the sources OR treat us to any uniquely valuable information that she acquired from these secret sources.

Liar.

 

[California Girl]

I agree it may be ironic, but having blinders on is prerequisite fo any partisan, left or right.

Which is why maintaining an open mind is supposed to be a virtue.

CG is a troll. Is that a virtue?

"Troll" does NOT mean "someone who posts things that hurt leftists' feelings".

NYCretin's one of those who think repeating lies makes them truth. He's a fucking moron. True story.

 

[daveman]

CG is a troll. Is that a virtue?

"Troll" does NOT mean "someone who posts things that hurt leftists' feelings".

NYCretin's one of those who think repeating lies makes them truth. He's a fucking moron. True story.

I've come to that conclusion myself.

How is it that such abjectly stupid people can consider themselves smarter than everyone else?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Really? I don't see a retraction at all. Your English must be different from the rest of the worlds English.

I'll give you a dollar for every post you can make that argues a point WITHOUT mentioning either you or an opponent.

Same goes for daveman. Naturally, my finances are perfectly safe.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge how ridiculous it is to start a thread complaining about a media outlet's lie by referencing a completely different source.

And this is why you'll never earn any money from me.

 

[daveman]

I'll give you a dollar for every post you can make that argues a point WITHOUT mentioning either you or an opponent.

Same goes for daveman. Naturally, my finances are perfectly safe.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge how ridiculous it is to start a thread complaining about a media outlet's lie by referencing a completely different source.

And this is why you'll never earn any money from me.

You keep your money. Use it to buy a fucking clue.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Still waiting for you to acknowledge how ridiculous it is to start a thread complaining about a media outlet's lie by referencing a completely different source.

And this is why you'll never earn any money from me.

You keep your money. Use it to buy a fucking clue.

I already have two: you're not a conservative, and you've got nothing to be proud of.

 

[Trajan]

Good. For some reason it wasn't showing up when I searched for it.

good what? where's YOUR retraction, eh?

He just did it, moron.

Here's the real AARP position:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security - AARP.org

Getting lippy again eh? I don't see a retraction, you see this;

Good as in "I'm relieved to know that it's not the coverup I first suspected."

When the news cycle is as fast as it now is, pundits like me will step in it every once in a while. .

is a retraction ( or mea culpa, I won't split hairs) and, since it came AFTER I requested it, I guess that makes you a jackass, but well, getting owned as many times as you manage it week in week out, I guess you need an outlet.

have a great day eh?

 

[Sallow]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

No it's not like the NYT.

And it's sad.

The WSJ use to be a bastion of good journalism..till it was brought under the Murdoch umbrella.

 

[elvis]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

No it's not like the NYT.

And it's sad.

The WSJ use to be a bastion of good journalism..till it was brought under the Murdoch umbrella.

 

[Sallow]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.


Source

No it's not like the NYT.

And it's sad.

The WSJ use to be a bastion of good journalism..till it was brought under the Murdoch umbrella.

I pity the fool.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnKm6ftPu0]YouTube - ‪Rocky 3 - Mr. T - I pity the fool‬‏[/ame]

 

[westwall]

He just did it, moron.

Here's the real AARP position:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security - AARP.org

Really? I don't see a retraction at all. Your English must be different from the rest of the worlds English.

I'll give you a dollar for every post you can make that argues a point WITHOUT mentioning either you or an opponent.

Same goes for daveman. Naturally, my finances are perfectly safe.

Then I suggest you read through a whole bunch of my posts. Yet another lack of accuracy, surprise surprise.

 

[Trajan]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

No it's not like the NYT.

thank god.

And it's sad.

no, whats sad is I am willing to wager you read very very little of the wsj if at all, I say not at all but hey...and as you take your marching orders from the Times as they are of course the last bastion of journalistic integrity, so, of course anyone who doesn't two the line.... well its 'sad'.

The WSJ use to be a bastion of good journalism..till it was brought under the Murdoch umbrella.

as I said, you as usual talking do do...get a pooper scooper and clean up at least.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

Does anyone realize that the editorial board of the WSJ is almost as liberal as the NYT? Why do people assume that it is a conservative paper? Is it because they never read the stories?

 

[daveman]

And this is why you'll never earn any money from me.

You keep your money. Use it to buy a fucking clue.

I already have two: you're not a conservative, and you've got nothing to be proud of.

Hope you kept the receipt. You need to take them back. They're defective.