Wall Street Journal caught in front-page lie

[Wonky Pundit]

Sorry, but I don't see the correlation. To me running or working for a business is usually self serving which is different from 'making the world a better place'.

(However, paraphrased from Adam Smith, looking to one's own interests in a free market economy, usually results in the world being a better place.)

It can't be completely self-serving. Customers don't give you money because they like you; they do it because of what you do for them.

But to the original point, I'd say that 100 people working together under a plan to improve the world (assuming the plan makes sense) is much more effective than 100 individuals doing whatever each chose to be best, and perhaps working at cross-purposes. In other words, the leftists (as you're describing them) have a major advantage here.

News Flash: giving money for services or products rendered IS self serving. Hiring people to do a job you need done is self serving. Working for somebody to do a job they need to be done is self serving.

In the words of Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

I agree: What I said was that it can't be completely self-serving. Customers do not part with their money for nothing.

And I don't know that 100 (leftist) people working to improve the world are doing one damn thing more noble than are 100 (conservative) people going to work, raising their kids to be responsible productive citizens, putting in their time at the local church or charity or whatever, buying, selling, and just going about their daily lives without intruding on the lives of others.

Nobility has nothing to do with it. I was talking about effectiveness.

Tell me, when a thousand people show up at a Tea Party rally for the purpose of working for a better government/country/world, are you appreciative? Or contemptuous?

I would be, if that were indeed what they were working for. However, as far as I can tell, all they're doing is ranting and screaming.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah. Did you read this paragraph?

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

So what are you accusing NPR of lying about?

I'm not, you freaking moron.

Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. Using what he's using instead of logic, NPR is lying as well.

I'm applying the standard he's using. But for some stupid reason, he doesn't think the standard should apply to liberal media.

However, since AARP did indeed say what the WSJ said they said, WSJ is NOT lying. NPR is NOT lying. AARP is sorry their comment was publicized; they're not sorry they said it.

Get it now, you moron?

I'm curious -- why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself to be intelligent? I can see no evidence.

Ah, someone who thinks that believing the earth is 6000 years old is intelligent now wants to be an authority on what is or isn't evidence of intelligence.

Indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Speaking of loathsome, hateful comments...there's Carby right on time.

What a piece of human-shaped crap you are.

CaliforniaGirl is a proven pathological liar on an anonymous internet forum. she could claim she was in the CIA and i'd give it as much credence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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??

Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?

Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.

oh, I should point out, I'm quoting this poster:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html

 

[blastoff]

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?

NOW you're getting it, comrade.

 

[daveman]

Thanks for your concern. I can take care of myself. Perhaps you should place your concern in a more inward direction.

One should do both. You must be concerned about improving yourself and the world around you to be more than just a waste of oxygen.

Back to the theme of 'left' and 'right, as a 'rightist' I would see it as my responsibility as to what I choose to do to make the world a better place. A 'leftist' would see it as his responsibility to tell me what I had to do to make the world a better place.

I prefer being a 'rightist'.

Very well said.

 

[daveman]

So what are you accusing NPR of lying about?

I'm not, you freaking moron.

Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. Using what he's using instead of logic, NPR is lying as well.

I'm applying the standard he's using. But for some stupid reason, he doesn't think the standard should apply to liberal media.

However, since AARP did indeed say what the WSJ said they said, WSJ is NOT lying. NPR is NOT lying. AARP is sorry their comment was publicized; they're not sorry they said it.

Get it now, you moron?

I'm curious -- why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself to be intelligent? I can see no evidence.

Ah, someone who thinks that believing the earth is 6000 years old is intelligent now wants to be an authority on what is or isn't evidence of intelligence.

Indeed.

Skippy, I've seen some of the things you believe in.

 

[daveman]

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

Speaking of loathsome, hateful comments...there's Carby right on time.

What a piece of human-shaped crap you are.

CaliforniaGirl is a proven pathological liar on an anonymous internet forum. she could claim she was in the CIA and i'd give it as much credence.

Naturally. You're incapable of condemning anyone on the left.

 

[daveman]

Daveman posted that??

Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?

Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.

oh, I should point out, I'm quoting this poster:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html

She's entitled to her opinion. You're entitled to yours. And I'm entitled to mine.

Ain't America great?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Daveman posted that??

Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?

Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.

oh, I should point out, I'm quoting this poster:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html

You must lose a lot of arguments.

 

[daveman]

Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?

Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.

oh, I should point out, I'm quoting this poster:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html

You must lose a lot of arguments.

No, no -- when a righty calls names, it's because he's out of credible argument.

When a lefty calls names, it's a statement of objective fact.

Right, carby?

 

[Momanohedhunter]

The only thing good about the Wall Street Journal is that you get a lot of pages for the price of the paper and it's good to wrap fish in.

And catching bird shit on the bottom of your bird cage.

 

[Synthaholic]

You rarely see such blatant hypocrisy so proudly displayed.

I'd bet that you can find at least 15,253 times on this forum.

"Hypocrisy: Something a leftist doesn't like."


Is that how you retards define all your words?

Hypocrisy: is that like when the Right is OUTRAGED!!!! over Rahm Emanuel using the word 'retard', but then casually throws it around when you want to insult Democrats?

Palin: Rahm Emanuel should be axed for 'retarded' comment

Rahm Emanuel on defensive over "retarded" comment


Yeah, hypocrisy - that's Right.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/rahm_emanuel_on_defensive_over.html

​

 

[Synthaholic]

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

daveman has no enemies to his Right. This has been proven time and time again.

Liar. I've shown you personally where I've condemned people on the right.

Keep reading. Then condemn Rinata's comment to CG. Then you won't be such a hypocrite.

But you won't condemn it, and you will be a hypocrite.

Why would I do that?

 

[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).

Read this story and ask yourself why they never mention religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24seattle.html?_r=1

The 38-page criminal complaint filed against the two suggested that they had not made final plans to carry out the alleged plot. They were frustrated, it said, by American war policies and discussed how to make an attack last as long as possible in order to get the most media attention for their actions.
​

.



If Chinese invaders were swarming all over the U.S., should every story about Americans trying to blow shit up in China include the fact that they are Christians? What's the relevence? We would be wanting to attack at the heartland of the people who are occupying our country.

I see no difference here.

That's the problem with you NeoCons: you are incapable of putting the shoe on the other foot. Iraqis - in their own fucking country - lay IEDs and land mines to kill the invaders, and you call them terrorists! Even though you would do the exact same thing if you were invaded.

You have failed to show bias. And what would the bias even be?

 

[Synthaholic]

Care to join me in meditation?

You know, it seems to me that for one to declare themselves a pundit they should know at least a bare minimum of what they are opining upon. You failed utterly with this particular thread. However, your intention to meditate on your navel is probably a great idea...it seems that may be an item you can actually be a pundit upon. Time will tell.

Uh oh. Now he'll label you a "faux conservative", and expect your feelings to be hurt.

You forgot your trademarked "widdle".

Because that's what 50 year old men do.

 

[daveman]

I'd bet that you can find at least 15,253 times on this forum.

"Hypocrisy: Something a leftist doesn't like."


Is that how you retards define all your words?

Hypocrisy: is that like when the Right is OUTRAGED!!!! over Rahm Emanuel using the word 'retard', but then casually throws it around when you want to insult Democrats?

Palin: Rahm Emanuel should be axed for 'retarded' comment

Rahm Emanuel on defensive over "retarded" comment


Yeah, hypocrisy - that's Right.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/rahm_emanuel_on_defensive_over.html

​

My goodness, you're not very bright.

Where did I, personally, condemn Rahm for using the word?

Hint: I didn't. So, therefore, I can't be a hypocrite for using it.

You retard.

 

[daveman]

daveman has no enemies to his Right. This has been proven time and time again.

Liar. I've shown you personally where I've condemned people on the right.

Keep reading. Then condemn Rinata's comment to CG. Then you won't be such a hypocrite.

But you won't condemn it, and you will be a hypocrite.

Why would I do that?

Exactly. You wouldn't. No enemies on the left.

And so you're a hypocrite.

 

[daveman]

You know, it seems to me that for one to declare themselves a pundit they should know at least a bare minimum of what they are opining upon. You failed utterly with this particular thread. However, your intention to meditate on your navel is probably a great idea...it seems that may be an item you can actually be a pundit upon. Time will tell.

Uh oh. Now he'll label you a "faux conservative", and expect your feelings to be hurt.

You forgot your trademarked "widdle".

Because that's what 50 year old men do.

I'm 48, dumbass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

Read this story and ask yourself why they never mention religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24seattle.html?_r=1

The 38-page criminal complaint filed against the two suggested that they had not made final plans to carry out the alleged plot. They were frustrated, it said, by American war policies and discussed how to make an attack last as long as possible in order to get the most media attention for their actions.
​

.



If Chinese invaders were swarming all over the U.S., should every story about Americans trying to blow shit up in China include the fact that they are Christians? What's the relevence? We would be wanting to attack at the heartland of the people who are occupying our country.

I see no difference here.

That's the problem with you NeoCons: you are incapable of putting the shoe on the other foot. Iraqis - in their own fucking country - lay IEDs and land mines to kill the invaders, and you call them terrorists! Even though you would do the exact same thing if you were invaded.

You have failed to show bias. And what would the bias even be?

If they posted videos on YouTube talking about a holy war in Jesus Christ, yes. This guy has multiple videos on YouTube talking about jihad and killing non Muslims. That makes his religion relevant.