John McCain needs a change

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I shall await the winnar111 answer, to see if he believes the logic of his own argument.

winnar111 logic = oxymoron. Heavy emphasis on the last two syllables.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if winnar1111 can make a case that the New York Times does not end up endorsing the consensus winner of every election since the beginning of the NYT on September 18, 1851, what winnar 111 is denial about is that the great unwashed mean majority is not always wise. As a the vast bulk of the people who voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 are kicking their own asses and wishing they had a do over. As any poll one might want to check on current GWB approval rating conveys in quite eloquent terms.

But given that the arguing point that winnar111 makes is that majority makes right, will winnar111 then be logically consistent and take the position that the New York Times will become magically correct if Obama wins the election of 2008?
And that winnar111 will also then reject the false journalistic Gods to be found in Fox news.

I shall await the winnar111 answer, to see if he believes the logic of his own argument.

I didn't say anything about right or wrong; merely that they're biased.

If we're stuck with Obama, the economy will go from being in the shitter on 1/20 and magically improve by the 1/21, they'll continue to ignore or manipulate news that doesn't suit their cause, and they'll continue the onslaught of pro-Dem op-ed pieces.

Nothing much will change.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain's advisors had a pow-wow teleconference with some media reps today. They were upset about how they were being painted as liars.

No kidding...the McCain rep actually repeated the same lies during the teleconference that they were called out for.

Facts won't work with these people. They are true believers in Emperor McCain and Queen Palin.

I listened to a segment of this teleconf and at one point Steve Schmidt accused one of Obama's campaign people of comparing Palin to Hitler.

I have never heard of that one until Steve Schmidt said something today.

anyone else?

 

[idiotekniQues]

so did mccain's campaign say rick davis didnt lobby for fm2 in the capacity the NYT said?

 

[OrByte]

And one other thing.

McCain's camp seems to think its the libral media running for POTUS.

I don't think McCain is gonna win if they are running a campaign against the media.

its Obama thats running for Prez...fyi to McCain and company.

and this persecution complex of the whiney-righteys is really getting out of hand.

 

[miketheidiot]

i wonder what they think of the wsj?

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: winnar111
The New York Times is essentially a subsidiary of the Democratic party. From McGovern to Carter to Mondale to Dukakis to Gore to Kerry, they've been out of touch with the rest of the nation and even the rest of NY state.

And that's based on... which Republican talking point memo?

The fact that they've been endorsing every Democrat for President since Eisenhower despite numerous GOP landslide elections in that timeframe?

NYT editorial board endorsed McCain for Rep. nominee:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...5fri2.html?ref=opinion

and Clinton as the Dem. nominee:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...inion&pagewanted=print

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: OrByte

and this persecution complex of the whiney-righteys is really getting out of hand.

Apparently, when Politico rebutted a lot of points the mccain camp made, someone in the camp accused Politico of "being in the tank" too.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: winnar111
The New York Times is essentially a subsidiary of the Democratic party. From McGovern to Carter to Mondale to Dukakis to Gore to Kerry, they've been out of touch with the rest of the nation and even the rest of NY state.

And that's based on... which Republican talking point memo?

The fact that they've been endorsing every Democrat for President since Eisenhower despite numerous GOP landslide elections in that timeframe?

NYT editorial board endorsed McCain for Rep. nominee:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...5fri2.html?ref=opinion

and Clinton as the Dem. nominee:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...inion&pagewanted=print

I'm not seeing your point. Did you expect them to endorse a Democrat for the Republican nomination? The first paragraph of their "endorsement" of John McCain says pretty much everything you need to know about the NYT's world view.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if winnar1111 can make a case that the New York Times does not end up endorsing the consensus winner of every election since the beginning of the NYT on September 18, 1851, what winnar 111 is denial about is that the great unwashed mean majority is not always wise. As a the vast bulk of the people who voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 are kicking their own asses and wishing they had a do over. As any poll one might want to check on current GWB approval rating conveys in quite eloquent terms.

But given that the arguing point that winnar111 makes is that majority makes right, will winnar111 then be logically consistent and take the position that the New York Times will become magically correct if Obama wins the election of 2008?
And that winnar111 will also then reject the false journalistic Gods to be found in Fox news.

I shall await the winnar111 answer, to see if he believes the logic of his own argument.

I didn't say anything about right or wrong; merely that they're biased.

If we're stuck with Obama, the economy will go from being in the shitter on 1/20 and magically improve by the 1/21, they'll continue to ignore or manipulate news that doesn't suit their cause, and they'll continue the onslaught of pro-Dem op-ed pieces.

Nothing much will change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me, I take much umbrage at the the new winnar111 position that "nothing
much will change." Which is a total denial of cause and effect and we might as well
elect any ole turkey, someone religion neutral like a druid implied. But that is what the new winnar111 logic now boils down to. On 1/21/2009, the world will not magically change, on that we can agree. Now who will have the better cause and effect policies?

May I suggest, winnar111, you think before you post self contradictory stupidity?

But at the end of the day, The New York Yankees will be one New York Team, the Mets another, the pope will still be catholic, bears will still shit in the woods, Fox News will be GOP biased, and cry me a river if the NYT makes more logical sense.

Don't like what the NYT sez, get logical and show us why they are wrong.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: winnar111
The New York Times is essentially a subsidiary of the Democratic party. From McGovern to Carter to Mondale to Dukakis to Gore to Kerry, they've been out of touch with the rest of the nation and even the rest of NY state.

And that's based on... which Republican talking point memo?

The fact that they've been endorsing every Democrat for President since Eisenhower despite numerous GOP landslide elections in that timeframe?

They're clearly out of touch with the rest of the country.

Yet, they're in touch with most the geo-political graphical region, like every other damn newspaper.

Is that why the state of New York went Republican 3 times since then, while the Times endorsed a Democrat all 3 times?

The state is largely liberal and votes democrat.

Are you trying to dispute this or something? Or just bs it?

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did anyone actually read the Obama campaign response??

Here is the Obama list of 'investigations' done on Obama by the NY Times.

1. In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [New York Times, 1/28/07]
2. So Far, Obama Can?t Take Black Vote For Granted [New York Times, 2/2/07]
3. Obama Had Slaveowning Kin [New York Times, 3/3/07]
4. Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized [New York Times, 3/6/07]
5. Obama, in Brief Investing Foray In '05, Took Same Path as Donors [New York Times, 3/7/07]
6. Obama Says His Investments Presented No Conflicts of Interest [New York Times, 3/8/07]
7. Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama's Hawaii Childhood [New York Times, 3/17/07]
8. Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq. [New York Times, 3/22/07]
9. After 2000 Loss, Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up [New York Times, 4/3/07]
10. A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith [New York Times, 4/30/07]
11. An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment in Illinois [New York Times, 6/14/07]
12. In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd. [New York Times, 7/30/07]
13. In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama. [New York Times, 9/9/07]
14. Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help. [New York Times, 10/1/07]
15. Obama?s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say. [New York Times, 10/30/07]
16. It?s Not Just ?Ayes? and ?Nays?: Obama?s Votes in Illinois Echo. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
17. Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate [New York Times, 2/3/08]
18. Daschle Uses Senate Ties To Blaze Path for Obama [New York Times, 2/5/08]
19. Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama?s Young Life [New York Times, 2/9/08]
20. Seeking Unity, Obama Feels Pull of Racial Divide [New York Times, 2/12/08]
21. Obama Walks a Difficult Path as He Courts Jewish Voters [New York Times, 3/1/08]
Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role [New York Times, 3/9/08]
22. A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama?s Path [New York Times, 3/14/08]
23.cPastor Defends His Predecessor at Obama?s Chicago Church [New York Times, 3/17/08]
24. Obama?s Narrator [New York Times, 4/1/07]
25. Wright Remains a Concern for Some Democrats [New York Times, 5/1/08]
26. A Strained Wright-Obama Bond Finally Snaps [New York Times, 5/1/08]
27. A Pulpit-and-Pews Gulf on Obama?s Ex-Pastor [New York Times, 5/2/08]
28. A Fiery Theology Under Fire [New York Times, 5/4/08]
29. Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
30. The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
31. Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church [New York Times, 6/1/08]
32. Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]
33. Where Whites Draw The Line [New York Times, 6/8/08]
34. Obama?s Organizing Years, Guiding Others and Finding Himself [New York Times, 7/7/08]
35. As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty [New York Times, 7/30/08]
36. Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences [New York Times, 8/3/08]
37. Big Donors, Too, Have Seats at Obama Fundraising Table [New York Times, 8/6/08]
38. Is Obama the End of Black Politics? [New York Times, 8/10/08]
39. Obama?s 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008 [New York Times, 8/20/08]
40. Obama Aides Defend Bank?s Pay to Biden Son [New York Times, 8/25/08]
41. Once a Convention Outsider, Obama Navigated a Path to the Marquee [New York Times, 8/27/08]
42. Obama Looks to Lessons From Chicago in His National Education Plan [New York Times, 9/10/08]

See anything about Bill Ayers on there?
How about Tony Rezko?

We know about the relationship between Palin and her librarian than about Obama and Ayer's relationship.

Did it ever enter your little head that the New York Times didn't run anything on Obama and Rezko/Ayers because there is nothing significant to say?

Oh wait, no. You won't stop whining and moaning until the entire world fits themselves into your insane world-view and substantiates all of your paranoia.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: winnar111
The New York Times is essentially a subsidiary of the Democratic party. From McGovern to Carter to Mondale to Dukakis to Gore to Kerry, they've been out of touch with the rest of the nation and even the rest of NY state.

And that's based on... which Republican talking point memo?

The fact that they've been endorsing every Democrat for President since Eisenhower despite numerous GOP landslide elections in that timeframe?

NYT editorial board endorsed McCain for Rep. nominee:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...5fri2.html?ref=opinion

and Clinton as the Dem. nominee:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...inion&pagewanted=print

I'm not seeing your point. Did you expect them to endorse a Democrat for the Republican nomination? The first paragraph of their "endorsement" of John McCain says pretty much everything you need to know about the NYT's world view.

I was addressing the post saying they endorse Democrats. It's not true, they endorsed McCain (a republican). Whatever their reason and -as you state "world view"- they did so.

 

[jpeyton]

Seriously? F*** this guy.

McCain has cited NYT articles dozens of times when he's made a case against his opponent.

Now, all of a sudden, they're no longer a "journalistic organization"?

Honestly, and sincerely, f*** this 72 year old piece of s***.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
I was addressing the post saying they endorse Democrats. It's not true, they endorsed McCain (a republican). Whatever their reason and -as you state "world view"- they did so.

Are you a bit simple? Of course they endorsed a republican for the republican nomination. Which party do you think they endorse for president?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did anyone actually read the Obama campaign response??

Here is the Obama list of 'investigations' done on Obama by the NY Times.

1. In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [New York Times, 1/28/07]
2. So Far, Obama Can?t Take Black Vote For Granted [New York Times, 2/2/07]
3. Obama Had Slaveowning Kin [New York Times, 3/3/07]
4. Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized [New York Times, 3/6/07]
5. Obama, in Brief Investing Foray In '05, Took Same Path as Donors [New York Times, 3/7/07]
6. Obama Says His Investments Presented No Conflicts of Interest [New York Times, 3/8/07]
7. Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama's Hawaii Childhood [New York Times, 3/17/07]
8. Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq. [New York Times, 3/22/07]
9. After 2000 Loss, Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up [New York Times, 4/3/07]
10. A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith [New York Times, 4/30/07]
11. An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment in Illinois [New York Times, 6/14/07]
12. In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd. [New York Times, 7/30/07]
13. In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama. [New York Times, 9/9/07]
14. Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help. [New York Times, 10/1/07]
15. Obama?s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say. [New York Times, 10/30/07]
16. It?s Not Just ?Ayes? and ?Nays?: Obama?s Votes in Illinois Echo. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
17. Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate [New York Times, 2/3/08]
18. Daschle Uses Senate Ties To Blaze Path for Obama [New York Times, 2/5/08]
19. Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama?s Young Life [New York Times, 2/9/08]
20. Seeking Unity, Obama Feels Pull of Racial Divide [New York Times, 2/12/08]
21. Obama Walks a Difficult Path as He Courts Jewish Voters [New York Times, 3/1/08]
Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role [New York Times, 3/9/08]
22. A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama?s Path [New York Times, 3/14/08]
23.cPastor Defends His Predecessor at Obama?s Chicago Church [New York Times, 3/17/08]
24. Obama?s Narrator [New York Times, 4/1/07]
25. Wright Remains a Concern for Some Democrats [New York Times, 5/1/08]
26. A Strained Wright-Obama Bond Finally Snaps [New York Times, 5/1/08]
27. A Pulpit-and-Pews Gulf on Obama?s Ex-Pastor [New York Times, 5/2/08]
28. A Fiery Theology Under Fire [New York Times, 5/4/08]
29. Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
30. The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
31. Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church [New York Times, 6/1/08]
32. Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]
33. Where Whites Draw The Line [New York Times, 6/8/08]
34. Obama?s Organizing Years, Guiding Others and Finding Himself [New York Times, 7/7/08]
35. As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty [New York Times, 7/30/08]
36. Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences [New York Times, 8/3/08]
37. Big Donors, Too, Have Seats at Obama Fundraising Table [New York Times, 8/6/08]
38. Is Obama the End of Black Politics? [New York Times, 8/10/08]
39. Obama?s 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008 [New York Times, 8/20/08]
40. Obama Aides Defend Bank?s Pay to Biden Son [New York Times, 8/25/08]
41. Once a Convention Outsider, Obama Navigated a Path to the Marquee [New York Times, 8/27/08]
42. Obama Looks to Lessons From Chicago in His National Education Plan [New York Times, 9/10/08]

See anything about Bill Ayers on there?
How about Tony Rezko?

We know about the relationship between Palin and her librarian than about Obama and Ayer's relationship.

I don't see anything on Capone either, or Hitler.

Why don't you deal with the subject of the post. Don't you realize you're insulting the OP by bringing up extraneous irrelevancies in his post. Why do you want to damage the logical structure of this forum by always bring up stuff about the opponent when the thread is about McCain. This kind of disingenuous and dishonest behavior, in a forum designed to air opinions on subjects is destructive to that intention. You need to start your own thread and to address your subject. Perhaps it's the necked absurdity of your point, however, you don't want to put out there on it's own two feet because you maybe recognize it would fall on its face, so you sneak it in like termites into a building, hoping to eat the timber the OP was trying to erect. Shame on you, sir.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if winnar1111 can make a case that the New York Times does not end up endorsing the consensus winner of every election since the beginning of the NYT on September 18, 1851, what winnar 111 is denial about is that the great unwashed mean majority is not always wise. As a the vast bulk of the people who voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 are kicking their own asses and wishing they had a do over. As any poll one might want to check on current GWB approval rating conveys in quite eloquent terms.

But given that the arguing point that winnar111 makes is that majority makes right, will winnar111 then be logically consistent and take the position that the New York Times will become magically correct if Obama wins the election of 2008?
And that winnar111 will also then reject the false journalistic Gods to be found in Fox news.

I shall await the winnar111 answer, to see if he believes the logic of his own argument.

I didn't say anything about right or wrong; merely that they're biased.

If we're stuck with Obama, the economy will go from being in the shitter on 1/20 and magically improve by the 1/21, they'll continue to ignore or manipulate news that doesn't suit their cause, and they'll continue the onslaught of pro-Dem op-ed pieces.

Nothing much will change.

You are either ignorant or stupid. The editorial page of the NYT has no more to do with the quality of the reporting than the editorial page of the WSJ has to do with the reporting there. Simply put by all objective measures the New York Times is the paper of record for the north american continent. Maybe you don't like it because you wish to cling to your conservative positions, but as I have said many times on here the hilariously stupid assault on the NYT that the right attempts to make merely assaults the most respected and most lauded (through pulitzer prizes) newspaper that America has ever made. It's an exceptionally good newspaper, you're just mad that they keep exposing how shitty the Republicans have been the last several years.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are a limited number of techniques that politicians use to try to control the dialog that happens in the press. Right now McCain is trying to scare the owners of the Times with the possibility he will be elected and get even. He is trying to intimidate them into backing off. When the message is bad, attack the messenger. Their techniques are extreme so they must be feeling desperate.

The McCain campaign is about change. They are changing their campaign from favoring deregulations to punishing the "slime" who were handed loans to buy more house than they could afford.

 

[HomerJS]

Unlike Fox News calling Obama a terrorist?

 

[jpeyton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HabIoeqzL40

 

[SP33Demon]

I hear something. Is that the sound of the.... GOP WAAAAAAHMBULANCE?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did anyone actually read the Obama campaign response??

Here is the Obama list of 'investigations' done on Obama by the NY Times.

SNIPPED for stupidty

See anything about Bill Ayers on there?
How about Tony Rezko?

We know about the relationship between Palin and her librarian than about Obama and Ayer's relationship.

NYT piece on Rezko and Obama

NYT piece on Obama and Ayers


NYT articles on Obama and Rev. Wright

I think that you and the McCain camp need to shut up now PJ about how the NYT only reports "150%" positive articles about Obama.

 

[GTKeeper]

We knew that the McCain blow-up was going to happen eventually. He is known for not having any temparment.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: winnar111
The New York Times is essentially a subsidiary of the Democratic party. From McGovern to Carter to Mondale to Dukakis to Gore to Kerry, they've been out of touch with the rest of the nation and even the rest of NY state.

And that's based on... which Republican talking point memo?

The fact that they've been endorsing every Democrat for President since Eisenhower despite numerous GOP landslide elections in that timeframe?

They're clearly out of touch with the rest of the country.

Yet, they're in touch with most the geo-political graphical region, like every other damn newspaper.

Is that why the state of New York went Republican 3 times since then, while the Times endorsed a Democrat all 3 times?

The state is largely liberal and votes democrat.

Are you trying to dispute this or something? Or just bs it?

No, I'm saying that when the paper endorses a D while the state votes for an R, the paper is out of touch with the state.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: winnar111
The New York Times is essentially a subsidiary of the Democratic party. From McGovern to Carter to Mondale to Dukakis to Gore to Kerry, they've been out of touch with the rest of the nation and even the rest of NY state.

And that's based on... which Republican talking point memo?

The fact that they've been endorsing every Democrat for President since Eisenhower despite numerous GOP landslide elections in that timeframe?

They're clearly out of touch with the rest of the country.

Yet, they're in touch with most the geo-political graphical region, like every other damn newspaper.

Is that why the state of New York went Republican 3 times since then, while the Times endorsed a Democrat all 3 times?

The state is largely liberal and votes democrat.

Are you trying to dispute this or something? Or just bs it?

No, I'm saying that when the paper endorses a D while the state votes for an R, the paper is out of touch with the state.

Well I guarantee that will be more than just the NYT that is supposedly out of touch. Depending on who actually wins the election there will be plenty of 'out of touch' newspaper in the US. Actually you could make that point on any newspaper. The Detroit Free Press supported Al Gore and John Kerry so apparently they were out of touch too.

Last I checked they can support whom they want, they aren't trying to win voter points, they pick who they think is the best candidate just like everyone else in this country.