It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So much for the NY Times and their credibility

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
One who changed her mind . Probably thinks she can get him back.


The guy has been proven to be a sexist objectifying fool.

There is no excuse. ".nobody respects women more than Donald Trump "
Yes nobody does. Who ever nobody is I'm sure he respects women more. Also why does trump speak about himself in the third person?. Does he think he's royalty or something?




posted on May, 18 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The NYT reporters on this were interviewed. They look like they just got out of Journalism school.
Liberal Hit Piece...Failed and Backfired.


"yeah...good thing no conservative newspaper HAS EVER done that...rolls eyes...."

We weren't talking about a conservative newspaper though, which you won't accept as fact anyways. The NYT is supposed to be "accepted as fact" I thought? We're talking about this instance where the NYT lied and was proven lied. Redirecting is a logical fallacy. Address the issue. Don't just say, but they stole cookies from the cookie jar too so it doesn't matter if I steal cookies from the cookie jar! That is 6 yr old logic or obvious troll. Take your pick. Not at you IAMTAT I lost the guy that was meant to that said the eye rolling thing I am newb at ATS lol.
edit on 18-5-2016 by LordDraconia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

He seems to think he's something else. The guy has the worst tan and haircut ever. He also likes to pretend to be his own public relations person and lie about it. Wait he kinda lies about all sorts of things.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
www.nydailynews.com...


Ummm linking to an article on Clinton is not too bright, given that she enabled her husband in SEX ABUSE of numerous women, and the attacked those very same victims....Get real...



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

What victims ? He was cleared of all allegations and nothing was proven.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: M5xaz

What victims ? He was cleared of all allegations and nothing was proven.


So if a women gets raped but can't prove it, the rapist is innocent? Bet a lot of people will not like that.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I'm saying you can't call someone a rapist and abuser without proof. Innocent until proven guilty. Or if someone accused you of being a rapist would you prefer they lock you up without proper investigation and a trial?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

Yes. When a news publication changes what she said when they print the story it is call lying and should be considered slander and defamation of character. They should be sued and stripped of their "license" to report the news. Personally...I think they should be fined and imprisoned because their purpose was to influence the public as to whom they should and shouldn't vote fore which therefore makes it a conspiracy of the liberal media.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Apparently not another woman vane forward saying she was never even interviewed and was missing quoted. So now theres two that spoke out and said Donald was a gentleman. I'd say it's obvious the New York times has an agenda to perpetuate the donald hates women theme to get hillary elected.

www.dailymail.co.uk... -him.html



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: M5xaz

What victims ? He was cleared of all allegations and nothing was proven.


Bill Clinton got IMPEACHED and lost his law licence for LYING under oath

But go ahead, defend a rapist....



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

He lied about having sex with Monica which he later admiited. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying you can't call someone a rapist without proof. Maybe your a rapist.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: M5xaz

He lied about having sex with Monica which he later admiited. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying you can't call someone a rapist without proof. Maybe your a rapist.


Rapist.
Me?
Seriously ?
NO, because I have something you or Hillary don't have: MORALS
That desperate to defend Hillary?

www.dailymail.co.uk... html

You a paid troll for Hillary ?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

I never once said I'm for Hillary. In fact I've said multiple times on ATS I think she's seriously messed up. She has the most evil laugh I have ever heard.

I just don't think throwing the term rapist around is something anyone should do unless their is proof and they have been convicted.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Yes. When a news publication changes what she said when they print the story it is call lying and should be considered slander and defamation of character. They should be sued and stripped of their "license" to report the news. Personally...I think they should be fined and imprisoned because their purpose was to influence the public as to whom they should and shouldn't vote fore which therefore makes it a conspiracy of the liberal media.


They did not change what she said, so it was not lying. Did you know that we have freedom of the press in this country? Apparently not.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Yes. When a news publication changes what she said when they print the story it is call lying and should be considered slander and defamation of character. They should be sued and stripped of their "license" to report the news. Personally...I think they should be fined and imprisoned because their purpose was to influence the public as to whom they should and shouldn't vote fore which therefore makes it a conspiracy of the liberal media.


They did not change what she said, so it was not lying. Did you know that we have freedom of the press in this country? Apparently not.

But they lied to her to get the information.

Again,


"The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure my story that I was telling came across, they promised several times that they would do it accurately, they told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that I was telling it and honestly and it absolutely was not,” Brewer Lane said.

If you don't believe the media has power over people and that the NYT article was not a hit piece, then there is no further point we can agree on.

It's scumbag journalism to further an agenda.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Which covers about 95% of all journalism nowadays whether it be left or right it's not truth and is only to keep the political masses r fighting.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

He wasn't a rapist. The impeachment was for lying. History books are available at the local library if you need.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Let's continue.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Yes. When a news publication changes what she said when they print the story it is call lying and should be considered slander and defamation of character. They should be sued and stripped of their "license" to report the news. Personally...I think they should be fined and imprisoned because their purpose was to influence the public as to whom they should and shouldn't vote fore which therefore makes it a conspiracy of the liberal media.


They did not change what she said, so it was not lying. Did you know that we have freedom of the press in this country? Apparently not.

I find it so funny when someone responds with "facts" that turn out to be "stupidity". As already stated...the woman interviewed says they manipulated her words and printed lies. Horse's mouth?




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join