"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
True enough! Both editorialized in favor of war. And no-one is more
responsible for giving voice to Bush & Cheney's lies than the front page
of
the New York Times, so, yeah, they are indeed very partisan.

BWHAHAHA, you can't be serious. The NYT a mouthpiece for Bush, that's just
plain stupid. Show me ONE pro-war editorial.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:28:33 -0500, dxAce
wrote:



MnMikew wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

They're both the DNCTimes. East and West Coast editions.

dxAce
Michigan
USA
I don't know about the L. A. Times, but the New York Times (no
relation) has been caught aiding the Administration's propaganda
campaign leading up to the fake Iraq war. The criminal White House
would steer Judith Miller to Curveball, Miller would publish
Curveball's bull**** WMD fantasies, then Bunnypants would use the NY
Times stories as proof of Saddam's giant threat.

David wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:28:33 -0500, dxAce
wrote:



MnMikew wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

They're both the DNCTimes. East and West Coast editions.

dxAce
Michigan
USA
I don't know about the L. A. Times, but the New York Times (no
relation) has been caught aiding the Administration's propaganda
campaign leading up to the fake Iraq war. The criminal White House
would steer Judith Miller to Curveball, Miller would publish
Curveball's bull**** WMD fantasies, then Bunnypants would use the NY
Times stories as proof of Saddam's giant threat.

OK, Dependspants.

LMAO at the mentally ill Rickets yet again.

You go!, 'tard boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
True enough! Both editorialized in favor of war. And no-one is more
responsible for giving voice to Bush & Cheney's lies than the front page
of
the New York Times, so, yeah, they are indeed very partisan.

BWHAHAHA, you can't be serious. The NYT a mouthpiece for Bush, that's just
plain stupid. Show me ONE pro-war editorial.

You can look at their editorials from February to April 2003. It's all
there. As far as their front-page coverage, it's remarkable -- and somehwat
peculiar, don't you think? -- that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney would spend
every Sunday morning talk show trumpeting the librul New York Times in-depth
weapons reporting to push their drive to war. It's all on record.

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

MnMikew wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007148.php

As we know now from the LATimes and the NYTimes,

Now there's some non-partisan sources. NOT!

They're both the DNCTimes. East and West Coast editions.

I don't read the Times from either coast due to their liberal bias. I
don't read or support their web sites either.

All newspapers are generally on the decline because of the poor
reporting and bias exhibited in the daily print. The newspapers used to
have a lock on reporting the news so the general public was ignorant of
this fact but not anymore. AM broadcast talk radio, AM radio news, the
Internet and satellite have become alternate sources of news reporting
and commentary.

In the past unless you had a short-wave radio you did not really
understand what was going on out in the world. All you had was the
newspapers and their slant. The three networked TV and radio news was
mostly in lock step with the newspapers and you would get the same
story from them. Short-wave was the only way you could hear what other
countries had to say about events or about the USA "directly" without
the newspapers filtering what they had to say but only the short-wave
listening crowd had that ability.

Not only did I listen to Russia, Red China and other communist
countries SW broadcasts I also used to read their news network over
short-wave with a Universal RTTY decoder. Listening to their networked
news their main object was to nuke if necessary then over run the USA,
Israel, Vietnam, South Korea and basically just grind us into the dust.
The USA was evil and deserved whatever it had coming to it. The total
defeat and occupation of the USA was was the goal all the communists
countries worked toward and that is still their objective today. You
did not hear ANY of this strident talk reported in the main stream
media until recently.

Today people have more of these alternate sources to compare to the
newsprint and are rejecting the poor reporting and bias in reporting
the news and the general public has also rejected to greater degree the
biased commentary about the news. Since a greater percentage of the
population have other sources to compare the print reporters "take" on
the news than just short-wave radio more and more people are becoming
aware of the media bias and are rejecting that bias.

The East and West coast Times have not learned their lesson that they
no longer have a lock on the news reporting and will continue to
decline.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"yojimbo" wrote in message
...

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"yojimbo" wrote in message
.. .
True enough! Both editorialized in favor of war. And no-one is more
responsible for giving voice to Bush & Cheney's lies than the front
page
of
the New York Times, so, yeah, they are indeed very partisan.

BWHAHAHA, you can't be serious. The NYT a mouthpiece for Bush, that's
just
plain stupid. Show me ONE pro-war editorial.

You can look at their editorials from February to April 2003. It's all
there. As far as their front-page coverage, it's remarkable -- and
somehwat
peculiar, don't you think? -- that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney would spend
every Sunday morning talk show trumpeting the librul New York Times
in-depth
weapons reporting to push their drive to war. It's all on record.


Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq, defended
U.S. efforts there in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal and a subsequent news
conference on Capitol Hill, saying the military has "a good plan" for
victory in Iraq, that progress is "visible and practical" and warning that
such progress could be turned back by a premature withdrawal.
But the major media that played up Democratic Rep. John Murtha's call for
withdrawing U.S. troops largely ignored Lieberman's remarks. Neither ABC nor
CBS mentioned the senator in their nightly newscasts while NBC aired a short
sound byte. And The Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today ran not a
word of Lieberman's praise for U.S. efforts in Iraq.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Today people have more of these alternate sources to compare to the
newsprint and are rejecting the poor reporting and bias in reporting
the news and the general public has also rejected to greater degree the
biased commentary about the news.

All good points. But of course, none of that stopped Dick Cheney from using
the librul NYT every Sunday to push his war while at the same time sweeping
CIA doubts under the rug. Doesn't anybody else think it odd that a
Republican White House would prioritize and herald intelligence from
anonymous sources printed in the librul New York Times over it's own CIA has
a problem? Or is it just another awesome punchline for us to laugh our heads
off?

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq, defended
U.S. efforts there in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal and a subsequent news
conference on Capitol Hill, saying the military has "a good plan" for
victory in Iraq, that progress is "visible and practical" and warning that
such progress could be turned back by a premature withdrawal.
But the major media that played up Democratic Rep. John Murtha's call for
withdrawing U.S. troops largely ignored Lieberman's remarks. Neither ABC
nor
CBS mentioned the senator in their nightly newscasts while NBC aired a
short
sound byte. And The Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today ran not
a
word of Lieberman's praise for U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Oh, so now we want to endorse the radical views of Joe LOSERman???

Har-har, LMAO!!!

In article ,
"MnMikew" wrote:

"yojimbo" wrote in message
...

Snip BS

Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq,
defended U.S. efforts there in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal and a
subsequent news conference on Capitol Hill, saying the military has
"a good plan" for victory in Iraq, that progress is "visible and
practical" and warning that such progress could be turned back by a
premature withdrawal. But the major media that played up Democratic
Rep. John Murtha's call for withdrawing U.S. troops largely ignored
Lieberman's remarks. Neither ABC nor CBS mentioned the senator in
their nightly newscasts while NBC aired a short sound byte. And The
Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today ran not a word of
Lieberman's praise for U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Joe Lieberman appears to be one of a handful of elected Democrats that
will stick to principle over party. He is one of the few Democrat
Senators I trust to speak the truth or do the right thing.

I trust ABC, NBC or CBS News will spin the story just like the East or
West coast Times. These organizations are all of the same liberal ilk,
which is why they are on the decline.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Joe Lieberman appears to be one of a handful of elected Democrats that
will stick to principle over party.

....And the facts!!

Time magazine Baghdad Bureau Chief Michael Ware, just the other day:

"I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other
day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is
so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's
spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of
this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and
yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

He is one of the few Democrat
Senators I trust to speak the truth or do the right thing.

Yeah, he speaks the Bush truth (ie. "There can be no doubt") and the Bush
right thing (ie. "We must not be nation-builders," Mr. Bush told LOSERman's
running-mate in the 2000 election debates).

I trust ABC, NBC or CBS News

There ya go again, putting your trust in the librul media. How many times
can they trot out Mr. Bush's war lies and excuses before exercising some
skepticism??


will spin the story just like the East or
West coast Times. These organizations are all of the same liberal ilk,
which is why they are on the decline.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California