...sticking a shit-smeared penis in his mouth to be "normal" complaining about Rudy
I have no problem talking about you guys trying to get the Times. I don't really care what you sexually fantasize about either. If you want to concentrate on chipping away at the Time's reputation though then why stick posts in attacking me personally & not expect me not to reply back?
If you want to concentrate on chipping away at the Time's reputation though then why stick posts in attacking me personally & not expect me not to reply back?
As I recall, you made clear in word and deed that you approve of editing post titles on a regular basis to be something completely non-descriptive to the subject at hand.
I'm just joining in the fun you started.
As for your other observation, as I've noted long before now, I think the law is a bad law. Thefore, I think the Times should fight it. I just think we should be consistent and not base enforcement on whether the group at issue is conservative or liberal.
I also think, and I've mentioned this before also, that a newspaper is the last organization that should ever be calling for someone else to be censored.
In the past, you've been willing to admit a certain level of discomfort with liberals trying to censor others. I can respect that.
Here, we have something related, in that we have a popular "liberal" newspaper seemingly bending the rules for a group they favor. I would like to think that, if you really believed in "Fair Play," you could be a mensch here and realize that the Times, or someone on their staff, probably fucked up.
Instead, you'd rather edit thread titles and engage in yet-another round of Rudy-bashing.
...sticking a shit-smeared penis in his mouth to be "normal" complaining about Rudy
I have no problem talking about you guys trying to get the Times. I don't really care what you sexually fantasize about either. If you want to concentrate on chipping away at the Time's reputation though then why stick posts in attacking me personally & not expect me not to reply back?
So you don't really have a problem with my replying back to your personal attacks.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is about the "Times". It's no different than something the NY Post would do.
It would honestly bother me if they did indeed do what there being accussed of. Those accussations need to be proven first though. That's not being unreasonable IMHO.
Actually I think it's good that he's going after Hillary. When she's done with him he'll wish he had stuck to pissing off firefighters & the ground zero workers.
Sigh, I'm sure whenever he keels over from a Viagra overdose with whoever he's married to at the time, partisan nutjobs will also blame her for that one too.
I thought what moveon.org did was pretty crappy myself. It's not a group I care for.
And, yet, you went out of your way to retitle the thread to excise a reference to the very group (liberal group) you claim not to care for.
Must be more of that "fair play" we keep hearing about
the thread title was originally about the swift boat groups and had nothing to do with moveon.org he merely put it back to it's original line of discussion unlike the man who renamed it to attack moveon
From the same page; Hillary's response to this yawn fest.
Hillary responds to the children:
Quote:
“Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush’s failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton’s record in the campaign’s first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics.”
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
In a column published Sunday entitled, "Betraying Its Own Best Interests," Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt wrote that after reviewing the Times' policies regarding the sale and content of advertisements and conducting his own investigation of the matter, "I think the ad violated the Times' own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
In a column published Sunday entitled, "Betraying Its Own Best Interests," Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt wrote that after reviewing the Times' policies regarding the sale and content of advertisements and conducting his own investigation of the matter, "I think the ad violated the Times' own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."
did the story have Nelson in it originally, or did you alter a news article to reflect your personal views and then post it as if it were still the real news article? how the hell do you expect us to trust you? this on top of your many many lies and years of bullshit....:(
Shannon P. Duffy The Legal Intelligencer June 2, 2006
Bloggers cannot be hit with libel suits on the basis of anonymous postings on their Web sites because federal law grants them immunity by explicitly stating that they cannot be treated as the "publisher" of such comments, a federal judge has ruled........... (the rest is dry and lawyerly as fuck)
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.