President says New York Times is disgaceful

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
what is a crime is lying, exaggerating, taking stories out of context, launching attack campaigns against political leaders for purely selfish reasons, aiding and abetting enemies of the country and promoting foreign interests over local interests and I could go on and on... but why bother?




I wonder if you apply the same standards to our leaders as you do the NYTs.




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Me thinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle stainless.

Bush is a disgrace to the highest office in the land.

The very definition of why our forefathers put protections of checks and balances into the constitution.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
This pesky Freedom of the Press (written on a goddamn piece of paper) is ruining his whole game!

Of course Bush is going to say the NY Times is disgraceful! He doesn't want his secrets to get out. If this is such a big secret as told to Congress, then he should be more worried about the congress people who are 'leaking' this to the press, shouldn't he?

If 'terrorists' don't already know that their finances are being tracked, they've been living in a cave...


We need more papers like the NY Times to let us know what our government is doing.


Again, if we could trust our government to any degree, we wouldn't need to know what they're doing, but they've proven themselves untrustworthy and willing and able to screw us to get what they want. Therefore, they have given up their right to our trust.

I hope these papers reveal what this administration is and has been doing for all to see.



Ahabstar


Originally posted by Ahabstar
It is irresponsible and quite illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Is your free speech infringed?


Can you show me something to support this? Because I don't believe it's illegal.
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater



(This ruling preceded the adoption of building codes, and theatergoers faced a real possibility of being unable to escape the building in an emergency due to narrow aisles and jammed doors.)

Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day.


I don't wish to get in an argument about shouting "Fire" but I take issue with your post as factual.



Should a Satanic cult freely practice a human sacrifice on the steps of the National Cathedral in DC?


That's murder, not freedom of speech...



Should have Al Gore shot George W. and the Supreme Court Justices because they denied his 531st (or so ) Petition to recount the votes in Florida again?


Shooting a person is attempted murder, not freedom of expression...

Too often people do what you have done. Extend freedom of speech to encompass another crime and call it irresponsible exercise of freedoms.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swatmanthe New York Times will try anything to get the government in trouble. they abuse their freedom of speech and the press.


IMHO, the current administration will try to do anything to get 90% of our people in trouble. They abuse their office and powers granted to them by constitution. They are an insult to common sense and human dignity.


the NYT is a terrorist organization on american soil


LOL thanks for clarifying the fact that you are still in grade school (to admins: strictly a figure of speech and not to be considered an insult).



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Does anyone else agree that this attempt to silence the press, is particularly alarming? Especially when tags such as 'treasonous' and 'anti-american' are being bandied about so freely.

A government that espouses free speech, yet doesn't allow the media or press to question or criticise its actions is otherwise known as state sponsored 'propaganda'. We may laugh and poke fun at Fox news but even it has its place (although as what is another issue for another thread).

To shut up individual dissenters is one thing - wrong of course and there are those who would even deny that the government has been quietly doing this pre 9-11; but to shut up the very loud, very public voices of the NYT, the Washington Post or any other news outlet that does not agree with Bush and co. is a HUGE mistake that will further splinter factions and work against the US.

What is very obvious here is how the administration's invention of the term 'Neo Patriotism' is being used as a hammer to pound on civil liberities. Have something negative to say about Bush - well you must be Anti American. Utter criticism against an unfair war? Well, then you must not support American troops. Say anything negative about the adminstration, well you should just pack your bags and move somewhere else. REAL Americans don't fight against their own government.

This sort of 'you are with us or against us' rhetoric is nothing new and was used during McCarthy's time as well as the Vietnam war.

Open your eyes to what is going on instead of running to blindly support everything the government tells you. Should their enemies be your enemies? Do you really know who you are being pitted against?


The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness.
Edvard Teller



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Hows this for alarming? The government wants to take their press cridentials away from them!!!!!

You know, i'm going to be brutaly honest. If anyone doesnt think for one minute that we are not on the path to tyranny, or that we have arrived, you are very very sadly mistaken.

This is the road to Dictatorship.


BTW, i was watching Faux news and they are the ones who said my comment about taking away their credentials. Just to make that clear.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This pesky Freedom of the Press (written on a goddamn piece of paper) is ruining his whole game!
[edit on 27-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]


The same thing could be said about the majority of people here and their feelings toward Fox News. I don't care either way..they're all biased.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikelbee
Does anyone else agree that this attempt to silence the press, is particularly alarming? Especially when tags such as 'treasonous' and 'anti-american' are being bandied about so freely.


Alarming, yes, but not at all surprising (to me).

My thoughts are that this particular time, this administration was not able to silence or otherwise control the media. I'm convinced that there are other times when they've been successful. It's naïve to think otherwise, in my opinion.


Originally posted by zenlover28
The same thing could be said about the majority of people here and their feelings toward Fox News. I don't care either way..they're all biased.


You do realize I was talking about the Constitution, don't you? It's not biased.


[edit on 27-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Of course hopefully you realize I meant to quote more than that...right? Hopefully you do. If you didn't realize that, then my apologies, I just got lazy.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Well I kind of understand Mister President found NY Times disgraceful, since his Reading Abilities are pretty much Pathetic.

Ever tried reading NY Times upside down?

I guess it is pretty confusing!




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The fact that both Bush and Cheney are so up in arms about this should speak very clearly
that they have lost control.

The NYT report does not undermine national security.

The NYT report only further exposes the extent of corruption in their ideological
War On The U.S. Constitution.

The Neo-Con Rapture Republicans are showing their true colors.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Alarming, yes, but not at all surprising (to me). My thoughts are that this particular time, this administration was not able to silence or otherwise control the media. I'm convinced that there are other times when they've been successful. It's naïve to think otherwise, in my opinion.



You misunderstand. I am not naive to think they don't control the news to some extent. I would have to be half dead to not have noticed the current administration's heavy reliance on damage control experts and media spinners.

My alarm is in the very critical, very public denouncement of a large and reputable paper such as the NYT.

If the administration can afford to vocally and publicly humiliate any dissenting media; imagine what it will do to smaller agencies. Then what/who is next... dissenting radio? How about websites? Who wants to play 'pin the anti-American label on the donkey.'



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Why is anyone surprised by this? The Bush administartion continues to tread upon any law they feel are unnecessary in the execution of their ideology. They continue to take steps to discredit and humilate anyone who has the gall to expose what they are/have been doing. The Bush administration continues to divide and conquer, counting on the propaganda pumped out by neo-conservative organs like Faux News, The Weekly Standard, Newsmax, etc. to keep the base in line and blindly supporting the cause. The majority of Germans didn't know Hitler was a bad guy until it was too late either. When you're standing in a room, and everyone is pointing at you and laughing, there is a reason and you try to figure it out quickly. America, the world has been pointing at us and laughing for six years now. Clue in. There is a village in Texas that is missing it's idiot. Send Bush back there before we have no civil liberties left and while the world may still be warm to the idea of America as a country that can be trusted!



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
nikelbee, I didn't misunderstand.
I said I was alarmed, too.

And my naïve comment wasn't directed at you.
(I'll make it a different paragraph for clarity). My comment was about those people who think that all they hear on TV news and read in the newspapers is what's important and real and true. At least I don't think you think that.




[edit on 27-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
(edit: for having no idea who I aiming my diatribe at. I blame the pain killers I am taking for my tooth ache. Sorry BH).


n.





[edit on 27-6-2006 by nikelbee]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
In my mind, there are four possibilities here.

1) Both The NYTimes and President Bush are articulating what they feel is accurate and within their rights to articulate.

2) The NYTimes is reporting what it believes to be true information that the public has a right to know, and President Bush and/or others associated with him don't want that information being made public for their own nefarious reasons.

3) President Bush is expressing honest concern on his part or the part of others associated with him, and the NYTimes is trying to make him and his administration look bad.

4) Both the Bush administration and The NYTimes are grinding the respective axes of their ideological supporters, political and public alike.

If I'm completely objective about it, I have to at least consider numbers 1 and 4 (which are far from mutually exclusive.) If there is one thing I say in the course of my life that I hope at least one person heeds, it is this: both "sides" are equally capable, inclined, and have the resources necessary to carry out PR and disinformation campaigns of startling magnitude. I do not believe for one moment that any typical member of the public, either on the so-called "right" or the so-called "left," is capable of saying with authority and certainty what exactly is going on. Do I believe a conspiracy is and has been afoot? Yes. In fact, I believe there are and have been multiple competing agendas at work here. Do I believe either "side" has a monopoly on wrongdoing and conspiracy as it pertains to the "War On Terror?" No.

The more aware we become of wrongdoing and deceit, the more polarized we as a people become. Has anyone ever stopped to consider how conveniently this insulates any potential less visible, bipartisan (or non-partisan) conspiracy with a shape similar to, yet concealed by, the one(s) we argue about incessantly? Perhaps the people we read about in the news, each supporting one side against another, aren't even aware that what they perceive as their own heartfelt beliefs are being used to conceal a far more unified and unseen plot unfolding. Compartmentalization can achieve a dizzying array of effects, not the least among them being the total obliviousness of direct participants to what they're participating in. Just a thought.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
What surprises me about this Administration is how many people defend their actions because they agree with their ideology. What happened to the old saying, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

It's a slippery slope this enhancing the power of the President and making the Federal Government the Thought Police of the nation. What happens when a democrat manages to get in the White House and suddenly it's their turn to listen to your phone calls and pull the "press creditials" of the Washington Post?

The loss of civil liberties and the protection of the US Constitution should not be a partisan fight. The politically conservative should know better than anyone that big government is dangerous. Used to they were on the front lines of the fight against big government, now the conservatives have embraced the idea of MASSIVE government as long as they get to control it... What happens when the other side (you know the communists that actually LOVE big government) get control of this monster Bush has created?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Here is another example of leftist editing and slanting of news:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
Somebody remind that dude that freedom of the press is in interest of the people.


Not always.

Sometimes it is in the 'interest of the people' for the press to shut the hell up.

This system has been in place and has been successful.
It is perfectly legal to track terrorist money in this fashion.
The TV news reports that representatives from both sides
were briefed and they agreed that it was legal.
The TV news reports that those representatives tried to
get the NYT NOT to run the story for two months - for
security reasons.

The NYT did America a major disservice. It aided the enemy.
It put our operatives in jeapordy. It sensationalized something
that is LEGAL and is working for our security.

If this had been illegal - then it would be a different story.
This is a story that didn't need to be told.
The NYT should be ashamed of itself.


[edit on 6/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Is it legal? Has anyone really researched it to see if it's legal? This is world finances in 200 countries. Is it legal for the head of one country to have it's nose in financial transactions of citizens around the world? According to whose laws?

Is it 'legal' for countries around the world to have their nose in our financial transactions?

I think more research must be done before we can determine that this is 'legal'.



The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported that the records were examined under a series of broad U.S. subpoenas, with the Times reporting that Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions.

The Journal also said the existence of the program may be controversial in Europe and other parts of the world, and within the global banking industry, which has long worried about the privacy of transactions.
...
Based in Belgium, SWIFT is a financial industry cooperative that distributes data messages between 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries, as well as providing the software that allows the institutions to communicate with each other. According to the Journal, SWIFT handles more than 11 million transactions a day. The Times reports that it handles $6 trillion in transactions daily.


Source

So... is our government acting with integrity or sneaking around slipping dollars under tables to get what they want? Perhaps that's why they're so upset...

Forgive me that I don't trust them to be honest and above board.




[edit on 27-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join