Wall Street Journal caught in front-page lie

[Wonky Pundit]

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

The really sad part is that despite the fact I already admitted to finding it again, some of these nutjobs are STILL trying to win...something. I honestly can't figure out what.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahhh. Just more typical leftist misogyny, then.

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

Well, it wouldn't be leftist misogyny, would it?

No, it would dishing it out, which opens the door for getting some payback.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How?

Do keep up.

Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. NPR publishes the same information -- but he refuses to say NPR, or any liberal outlet with the same story, is lying as well.

Got it now?

Did you notice the question mark at the end of NPR's headline?

Did you notice the OP?

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

 

[daveman]

How?

Do keep up.

Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. NPR publishes the same information -- but he refuses to say NPR, or any liberal outlet with the same story, is lying as well.

Got it now?

Did you notice the question mark at the end of NPR's headline?

Yeah. Did you read this paragraph?

But while Certner and other AARP officials scrambled to distance themselves from the idea of cuts now, they did not dispute another major tenet of the story — that AARP recognizes benefit cuts in Social Security may be unavoidable in the future. But it wasn't something the organization wanted to see highlighted on the front page of a major newspaper.

They're not sorry they said it; they're sorry they got caught saying it.

 

[daveman]

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

Well, it wouldn't be leftist misogyny, would it?

No, it would dishing it out, which opens the door for getting some payback.

So, instead of rising above the behavior you condemn, you choose to wallow in it.

Don't ever claim to hold the moral high ground here. You'd be lying.

 

[Trajan]

I was referring to her appearance.

Ahhh. Just more typical leftist misogyny, then.

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

dude, go to the handbook, see; liberal rule no. 3;

'anyone of alike skin color or gender can make fun of each other, as long as they aren't both liberal'.

 

[Trajan]

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

oh oh me me me me ..

because he didn't look?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

oh oh me me me me ..

because he didn't look?

Are you accusing me of something?

If so, do it directly or keep your fabrications to yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

Because he is an idiot that wants to pretend he is a pundit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

The really sad part is that despite the fact I already admitted to finding it again, some of these nutjobs are STILL trying to win...something. I honestly can't figure out what.

You "found it" after another poster posted the link.

 

[California Girl]

Well, it wouldn't be leftist misogyny, would it?

No, it would dishing it out, which opens the door for getting some payback.

So, instead of rising above the behavior you condemn, you choose to wallow in it.

Don't ever claim to hold the moral high ground here. You'd be lying.

What NYCretinousTwit is referring to is that I call Rinata 'fat ass'. Interesting that I have never seen him comdemn her for her comment to me that led to me calling her a fat ass. She said that my deceased fiance dodged a bullet by dying instead of marrying me. That's why I call her a fat ass. But, as is usual with NYCretinousTwit, he defends her outrageous comment and bitches at me for mine. He has no moral standards whatsoever.

Also, he claims that I said I had 'secret sources'. I have never said that. Other people have said that because I access factual information from sources that are 'closed'. In other words, they are not available to the general public..... so, in his head, that makes them 'secret'. They aren't - and I have never claimed that they are - it is yet another example of repeating a lie so often that it becomes 'truth'.

Fucking idiots.

And, for the record, any time Rinata engages me on this board, she will get the same response. She's a fat bitch.

 

[California Girl]

Ahhh. Just more typical leftist misogyny, then.

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

dude, go to the handbook, see; liberal rule no. 3;

'anyone of alike skin color or gender can make fun of each other, as long as they aren't both liberal'.

As I said above, NY takes offence that I refer to Rinata as a fat ass. But, I've never seen him criticize her for telling me my deceased fiance 'dodged a bullet' for dying instead of marrying me. Personally, I think her comment was far more insulting than mine.... but, of course, he defends her...... just goes to show that shit sticks together.

He's a fucking little shit... and Rinata is a fat bitch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

dude, go to the handbook, see; liberal rule no. 3;

'anyone of alike skin color or gender can make fun of each other, as long as they aren't both liberal'.

As I said above, NY takes offence that I refer to Rinata as a fat ass. But, I've never seen him criticize her for telling me my deceased fiance 'dodged a bullet' for dying instead of marrying me. Personally, I think her comment was far more insulting than mine.... but, of course, he defends her...... just goes to show that shit sticks together.

He's a fucking little shit... and Rinata is a fat bitch.

Wow, the dead fiance card. You can go years on an anonymous internet forum and never see that one played.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

dude, go to the handbook, see; liberal rule no. 3;

'anyone of alike skin color or gender can make fun of each other, as long as they aren't both liberal'.

As I said above, NY takes offence that I refer to Rinata as a fat ass. But, I've never seen him criticize her for telling me my deceased fiance 'dodged a bullet' for dying instead of marrying me. Personally, I think her comment was far more insulting than mine.... but, of course, he defends her...... just goes to show that shit sticks together.

He's a fucking little shit... and Rinata is a fat bitch.

Let me quote daveman for the perfect response to that:

So, instead of rising above the behavior you condemn, you choose to wallow in it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

Because he is an idiot that wants to pretend he is a pundit?

That would make him a conservative around here. Not plausible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do keep up.

Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. NPR publishes the same information -- but he refuses to say NPR, or any liberal outlet with the same story, is lying as well.

Got it now?

Did you notice the question mark at the end of NPR's headline?

Yeah. Did you read this paragraph?

But while Certner and other AARP officials scrambled to distance themselves from the idea of cuts now, they did not dispute another major tenet of the story — that AARP recognizes benefit cuts in Social Security may be unavoidable in the future. But it wasn't something the organization wanted to see highlighted on the front page of a major newspaper.

They're not sorry they said it; they're sorry they got caught saying it.

So what are you accusing NPR of lying about?

 

[Synthaholic]

What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles.

I would love to see examples of the NYTimes doing this. I ask the wingnuts here all the time to give me examples of NYTimes bias in their news stories, and they have failed miserably, batting .000 (when they even take a swing at it).

 

[Sallow]

dude, go to the handbook, see; liberal rule no. 3;

'anyone of alike skin color or gender can make fun of each other, as long as they aren't both liberal'.

As I said above, NY takes offence that I refer to Rinata as a fat ass. But, I've never seen him criticize her for telling me my deceased fiance 'dodged a bullet' for dying instead of marrying me. Personally, I think her comment was far more insulting than mine.... but, of course, he defends her...... just goes to show that shit sticks together.

He's a fucking little shit... and Rinata is a fat bitch.

Let me quote daveman for the perfect response to that:

So, instead of rising above the behavior you condemn, you choose to wallow in it.

Daveman posted that??

 

[Sallow]

What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles.

I would love to see examples of the NYTimes doing this. I ask the wingnuts here all the time to give me examples of NYTimes bias in their news stories, and they have failed miserably, batting .000 (when they even take a swing at it).

Add in..if the NY Times gets something wrong..they immediately issue corrections the very next day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it wouldn't be leftist misogyny, would it?

No, it would dishing it out, which opens the door for getting some payback.

So, instead of rising above the behavior you condemn, you choose to wallow in it.

Don't ever claim to hold the moral high ground here. You'd be lying.

I didn't 'condemn' the behaviour, I just pointed out that it made the poster fair game. I'm not above occasionally playing the role of enforcer, as they call it in hockey.