Chris Wallace got things off with a bang.
Mitt Romney was asking about his raising of taxes as Massachusetts Governor. Romney stated that those were fees, he wants lower taxes, and that McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. He contrasted his own record with Huckabee’s. Romney wants 0% capital gains taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year. This is an excellent proposal.
McCain emphasized that tax cuts have to be offset with spending cuts to keep the deficits from ballooning. He announced his support from supply sider Jack Kemp.
When Wallace challenged that America rebounded from 9/11 and Katrina, mainly due to tax cuts, McCain again emphasize spending cuts, and promised to eliminate earmarks. He also mentioned Jack Abramoff, saying he would fight corruption, which helps taxpayers.
Romney stated that he cut spending when he was Governor, and cut taxes 19 times.
Huckabee was asked about his net tax raising as Governor. He stated that he cut taxes 94 times, and eliminated the marriage penalty. He entered with deficits, left with surpluses, and raised teacher pay. He stated that a 3 cent gas tax went to pay for roads, and the people voted for it. The purpose is to govern, not just keep taxes low.
Huckabee and Romney then sparred. Romney stated, “You make up stuff faster than you speak, and that says a lot.” Romney insisted that he supported the Bush 2002 tax cuts. When pressed on whether or not he raised taxes net, Huckabee refused to answer, dancing around the matter. Neither won that exchange.
Wallace stated that Rudy Giuliani had some tax cuts pass over his objection.
Rudy responded that he proposed 64 tax cuts, and got 23 passed. He stated that the overall tax burden went down 17% during his Mayoralty. He cited a George Will column praising Giuliani as the most conservative leader in the last 50 to 60 years. He insisted he is a supply sider.
Fred Thompson was asked about cutting social security benefits, and how he would react if the democrats blocked such a proposal.
Thompson stated he never said he would reduce benefits. He would allow individual accounts where government would match funds. Initial benefits should be indexed to inflation, not wages. The Cola (cost of living adjustment) would still increase, but less. As republicans understand, slowing the rate of growth is not a cut.
Romney claimed that Thompson’s plan was a mistake, with regards to benefit reductions.
McCain praised President Bush for trying to tackle Social Security in 2004. He praised the 1983 deal between Reagan and Tip O’Neill.
Huckabee was asked about his economic populism on the campaign trail. He denied that Romney was the focus of such rhetoric. He said that if his rhetoric was populism, then he was guilty. He worries about jobs going overseas.
Romney said he was offended by attacking corporations that provide jobs. He spoke of his private sector success.
Huckabee said we should eliminate all taxes including on death.
Thompson jokingly asked if Huckabee was trying to get rid of death, or just the death tax.
Huckabee responded that in his old profession (Minister) he tried to eliminate death.
Thompson responded that it did not work very well. It was a lighthearted exchange that they both laughed during.
Giuliani stated that he had the most experience with bringing people out of poverty, getting poor people off of welfare, and reducing unemployment. He acknowledged that republicans do a bad job of explaining to poor people why republican policies are better at getting people out of poverty. He spoke of fighting the ACLU to get people off of welfare and on the job.
Thompson wants a flatter tax, and the goal is to get things passed, not just pass feel good legislation that will be stopped cold.
Wallace brought up to McCain his being a creature of Washington, and how he is better to bring about change than Romney.
McCain responded that he supported the change from the Rumsfeld Iraq strategy to the Petraeus Iraq strategy. He stuck by his support for campaign finance reform, and his support for the line item veto, which was ruled unconstitutional.
Romney passed up the chance to directly attack McCain, sticking to his own record. The system is broken, and a Washington insider cannot change things from the inside out. Romney even positively cited Giuliani as an example of executive leadership. Romney emphasized that he himself is an outsider.
McCain pointed out he had experience in leadership, not management. He led for patriotism, not profit. He led a squadron. He stated that change was important, but security comes first, and he is best equipped base don his history to understand how to keep America secure. He promised to get Osama.
Thompson stated that change is the buzzword everyone heard from Iowa, and change is the buzzword for every election unless you’re an incumbent. He said leadership is more important than change, and leadership involves being truthful. He cited the length of the war, and social security, as examples of how we have to level with the American public.
Giuliani explained that change can be good or bad, and the democrats want to raise taxes, and pull out of Iraq regardless of consequences, both negative changes.
Romney was asked about his being a leader, not an expert, contrasting himself with McCain during a meeting with voters. He stood by those comments. He replied that unexpected events such as Tsunamis require a President, not a General, and that temperament matters. He stated that the Clintons endorsed McCain’s immigration plan.
McCain stated that Governors do not always bring results. That joke fell flat. Reagan understood national security policy, and such knowledge was vital. He stated that he opposed sending marines to Beirut back in the 1980s. When asked what he meant by saying that Romney was “staring at his shoes” during the Iraq debate. McCain replied that Romney never questioned the Rumsfeld strategy, and said the surge was “apparently” working.
Romney stated that he was “running a state at the time.”
Huckabee was asked about his lack of foreign policy experience given his various flubs on issues such as Pakistan and the NIE Iran report. He responded that he had been to 41 countries. He cited his 10 1/2 years as Governor, which I am not sure in any way relates to foreign policy. He rambled about domestic issues, ducking the question.
Wallace insisted on bringing it back to foreign policy, at which point Huckabee said he slipped on comments, but not with the truth. He then rambled some more, this time offering tough talk. It was not a good moment for him. He did praise McCain by saying he did not think being a Senator disqualified somebody from being President.
When asked if 9/11 actually had anything to do with foreign policy given that he had never been to Iraq, Giuliani explained that he was responsible for the safety of millions of people. He was the only one that had to directly deal with an Islamic terrorist attack. He negotiated with governments while at the Justice Department. He worked on a terrorism task force during the Ford administration. He has been to 35 countries, and went after the Mafia. He banned Castro and Arafat from U.N. celebrations, and gave back money from a Saudi Prince. “The DNA of New York involves you in foreign policy because the U.N. is there.”
Thompson got in a great line saying that “Mitt (Romney) believes expertise is important in every area except national security.” He mentioned his being on the Intelligence Committee. He was a republican floor manager for the Homeland Security Bill. He disagrees with Huckabee not due to missteps, but due to his comments about closing Guantanamo Bay. If they came here they would have rights here they do not deserve. He also mentioned that Ted Kennedy endorsed Romney’s health care plan. Thompson was very effective at offering contrast without taking cheap shots.
Huckabee tried to say that he felt Gitmo should be closed because it was too good for prisoners, a nonsensical assertion.
Thompson pointed out that if they came here they would get Habeas Corpus rights. It was a very polite exchange, but Thompson clearly won the argument that it does matter where they are.
McCain was asked by Wallace if he really meant it when he said he could get Bin Laden, and he implied that he would, and that he needed sound intelligence reports. He then had a great line that it was his life experience, not his Senate experience that mattered. Under captivity, “My time away from America, I grew to love her.”
McCain was asked how his immigration plan was not amnesty. McCain reiterated his plan in lengthy detail, and emphasized that border security was important, but so was compassion.
Romney questioned how we could know that 2 million out of the 12 million were criminals, and that granting amnesty is unfair. He also claimed that in 2002, McCain used the word amnesty himself, and was in favor of it.
McCain claimed that Romney in 2005 stated that McCain’s plan was not amnesty.
Huckabee was asked about allowing the children of illegal immigrants to go to college, followed by his tough plan forcing everyone to leave, which would punish children. Huckabee reiterated that the children of illegal immigrants should not be punished for the actions of their parents. Huckabee then got testy with Romney, looking very flustered, stating that he would answer Chris Wallace, but that Romney was not the moderator. It was brief, but a mini temper tantrum. Huckabee also praised Giuliani, stating that you cannot throw children on the street. Laws do not allow it.
Giuliani was asked about 1994 comments regarding illegal immigration that were softer than his current views. He again brought up his three exceptions…schools, emergency medical care, and whistleblowers. He is very good at explaining that New York City is not the entire country, and different circumstances require different actions. Adaptability is key, and he handled things in a humane way. He also stated that we are not doing any favors by letting illegal immigrants come here and be second class citizens. It hurts them.
Thompson said one concern was that our next generation was at risk, and that illegal immigrants also risk being thrown into a truck, and being beaten and raped. Their own methods of trying to get here risks American lives and their lives. It was a fascinating point, as was the one Rudy brought up just before him.
McCain was asked if Romney was lying about his record with regards to attack ads. McCain insisted that he was running a positive campaign, and that what mattered was his qualifications. He also added that “politics aint beanbag.”
Huckabee was asked about his comments that Romney was running a desperate and dishonest campaign. He then brought up his stunt refusing t run his own negative ad. To remind people of his own flub is odd. He then stated that he won Iowa because of it, forgetting that abortion was why he won Iowa.
When asked why he spent so much on negative ads, Romney stated that he offered many positive ads. He also spoke of the difference between an attack ad and an ad contrasting the records of various candidates. Romney brought up the threat by Ed Rollins (managing Huckabee) to kick Romney’s teeth in, and that he just did not want his hair messed up.
Huckabee laughed and stated that Chuck Norris (backing Huckabee) was waiting outside. Thompson chimed in and stated that he would have John Wayne take care of it.
The lighthearted moments were gone when Huckabee then cited the New Yoek Times review of a Romney ad calling the ad untruthful. It may have been, but relying on the Jayson Blair Times is not the answer for republicans.
Romney was asked about whether he thought the other candidates flip flopped as much as he did. He stated that changing a position on an issue is acceptable, as opposed to being stubborn. He changed on abortion, and apologized for his previous position. He then contrasted his giving out zero pardons with Huckabee giving out over 1000 pardons.
Giuliani was asked about Bernie Kerik and the controversy over Judy Nathan’s secret protection. Giuliani admitted a mistake regarding Kerik, and that the New York Times totally cleared him regarding his wife. Again, relying on the New York Times is not helpful, but he then attacked the paper for putting the correction on page 37. He acknowledged that nobody is perfect, we all mistakes, an those who have not, have done nothing.
When Wallace brought up that the Kerik matter was still open, Giuliani unequivocally stated that nothing regarding Kerik will come out to hurt him. He apologized, took responsibility, and said it would not happen again because he does not make the same mistakes.
McCain was asked about his age, and whether he would promise to serve only one term. He said no because “you become a lame duck quacking on inauguration day.” He stated that he is “older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein, but learned a lot along the way.” He cited Reagan’s successful second term.
Wallace then asked all the candidates to explain why they were the best person for the job of President. It was a softball, but overall Wallace did fine.
Giuliani stated that he had been tested, and then went over his record again. He emphasized that America currently is not moving in the wrong direction, and people who feel that it is are wrong.
Thompson stated that he was the only one at the table that never lost an election. He mentioned fighting for strong conservative judges and a 100% pro-life voting record.
Huckabee brought up the issue of living an ordinary American life, supporting the Second Amendment, states rights, and letting families run their lives, and not Government. “Americans are not looking for ideology. They want practical solutions.” That reminded me of Michael Dukakis and the competence argument.
Romney simply mentioned a bunch of issues, and reiterated his private sector success.
McCain mentioned leadership, and restoring trust in Government. He also said we needed to reenergize the base, which is ironic given that he has fought with the base more than the others.
I did not see a crystal clear winner, but Huckabee came across as petulant. He lost this debate hands down.
The other four candidates all did well enough. It very well could have been a four way draw. The real winner was the average republican voter, who got to see a discussion free of distractions and nonsense.
eric
I always tape these debates and then before I get a chance to watch them Eric throws up the run down. Which is cool I guess because it saves me two hours of waiting for the good stuff.
I could never sit that close to my opponents in a debate. Someone would probably deck me one. It would end up looking the floor at the Taiwanese parliament.
And now that I,ve watched it along with the New Hampshire debate I can retain some dignity in saying I watched the debate. As opposed to all the stupid youtube crap that was out there which I could only handle for 5 or 10 minutes at a time.
“The lighthearted moments were gone when Huckabee then cited the New Yoek Times review of a Romney ad calling the ad untruthful. It may have been, but relying on the Jayson Blair Times is not the answer for republicans.”
William Kristol just signed on with the “Jayson Blair Times” as a columnist, ya’ know. The NYT is the finest paper in the country and whenever I see conservatives bash the Times to me it’s like hearing them say, “Hey, look at me! I’m an anti-intellectual who would rather rather read tabloid trash than quality journalism!” It’s really beneath you guys – especially you, Eric – and you really should stop. Almost every major paper and news outlet in the country – heck, the world – has had a “Jayson Blair” type of incident, with or without the racial implications. And Ruppy’s papers and outlets are just blatantly low-brow and endlessly full of lies and distortions.
Huckabee won the debate, hands down, with this one comment – ““Americans are not looking for ideology. They want practical solutions.” He’s absolutely right. Rudy “9/11” Giuliani, Fred “Our Rights Come from God” Thompson, Mitt “Lower Taxes” Romney are all ideologues. McCain is probably the only other GOPer in the race who understands that practicality trumps ideology, though his position on Iraq might suggest otherwise. Giuliani and Romney used to know this, but seem to have thrown it out the window to pander to the Right. Maybe if one of them were elected they would relearn what made them in the first place.
JMJ
Racial implications? I think you can make an argument that there are “finer” papers in this country. I prefer the WSJ, and the Washington Post would be another contender. And speaking of ideology, there are certainly some ideologues in the TImes editorial board. Maybe Eric’s joke was a little weak, but I just can’t consider the NYT the finest paper. It may once have been.
The reason why I don’t think Hucakbee won the debate is that his solutions are so poor, and often vague.
JMJ said;
“McCain is probably the only other GOPer in the race who understands that practicality trumps ideology, though his position on Iraq might suggest otherwise. ”
His position and always has been for the last couple of years to send in more troops. He even discussed this with Rumsfeld a couple years ago over breakfast. Seems his position was right seeing as how we finally did send in more troops and now you dont hear much about Iraq on the news.
As far as practicallity goes. That is the one thing that does beat out idealism.
Which is all the more reason to believe he can fight radical Islam effectivley
JMJ said;
“McCain is probably the only other GOPer in the race who understands that practicality trumps ideology, though his position on Iraq might suggest otherwise. ”
His position and always has been for the last couple of years to send in more troops. He even discussed this with Rumsfeld a couple years ago over breakfast. Seems his position was right seeing as how we finally did send in more troops and now you dont hear much about Iraq on the news.
As far as practicallity goes. That is the one thing that does beat out idealism.
Which is all the more reason to believe he can fight radical Islam effectivley
McCain subscribes to the Powell Doctrine and has always said that going in on the cheap was a huge mistake. I concur. If you’re going to war you do not go in “with the army you have.” You get more.
JMJ
I like the blog! Altho I have no idea what a Republican is doing in LA.
You posted on MY blog http://jackieclarke.blogspot.com/ bc you liked me on Hannity and Colmes. But I couldnt figure out how to contact you. So hopefully you read your comments. Drop me a line…
“jackieclarke” and I do the whole g.m.a.i.l. thing.
Think I tricked the spammers?
Hi, My Us friend, how are you? How going democrats debate I think will win Obama; he’s very good, from what I can understand. I need 5 minutes of Your time. I must do a resume, or better a ‘description’ of my best Blog: http://canzoniitaliane.blogspot.com/ if you go here You can see that this site ( with 200 and more visitors a day) is follow from U.S.A users and I must made a little ( 7-8 words) to subscribe it in varius american england, canadian and australian directories, but my bad english language is not good to make that thing… I’d like that desctiption show to who read it that: ” the site is a site of italian music where for every article there is a descrition of one singer with his carreer and whit his best music videos, All for free!! ” But that one can be a log description, but for a little descrition I’m in difficult to resume that terms… Can You help me??!! Bye From BlogMasterPG, PERUGIA, Italy.
JMJ wears blinders if he thinks the Slimes is the ‘finest paper in the country’.
I might wish to ask him what criteria he uses to make that assessment, but I might already know the answer will be just as ludicrous as the assertion.
JMJ wears blinders if he thinks the Slimes is the ‘finest paper in the country’.
I might wish to ask him what criteria he uses to make that assessment, but I might already know the answer will be just as ludicrous as the assertion.
Sorry about the double. My bad. This laptop is a masterpiece of Vista flakiness.
Buona sera!
Come va blogmasterpg? grazie, va bene cosí. :=)
Hallowed, having been born and raised in the NY area, I’m quite familiar with the Times. It’s a fine paper – and it also happens to carry many fine conservative columnists. William Kristol (whom I personally detest) just signed up with the Times. I guess Kristol is just a waacky plaguerizing liberal, huh? To real liberals – like me – the Times, if anything, is too mainstream, politically. Only an idiot would think the Times is a “liberal” paper.
But it’s called taste, Hallowed. People with poor taste don’t read the Times. People with good taste do. It’s also brains. If you’re smart, you can read – and understand – the Times. If you’re stupid, there are many lousy yellow trash papers you can read. Like the Washington Times, the New York Post, etc. Or, if you are particularly intellectually lazy, you can watch Fox “News,” and then you can be especially embarrassing in educated circles, if that’s what you’re in to.
JMJ
Jersey, I’m gonna make this a little personal here.
I’m really getting sick and effing tired of you coming after decent peoples intellect.
First of all anybody in the world can get the times. You can be from Hoboken or Bum***k Egypt, it doesn’t matter. I could get it to my doorstep in Hawaii at 8 in the morning if I wanted. So your familiarity with the times is nothing to brag about, its like bragging about having a toilet.
Don’t get too excited about Billy being at the times or all the “many fine conservative columnists” you say work there. Billy is only doing one piece a week.
” Only an idiot would think the Times is a liberal paper”
You say its too mainstream ? Seeing as NY itself is very liberal what stream do you think it appeals too ? Are the liberals who think its a liberal paper and read it also idiots ? Are the cons who think its a liberal paper and read it also idiots ?
==================================================================
“But it’s called taste, Hallowed. People with poor taste don’t read the Times. ”
You call people idiots and tasteless and then you go and say something as idiotic and tasteless as this.
Just because you appreciate the nutty flavor of crap doesn’t mean we don’t have taste.
Who are you to define what is good and poor taste ?
What are you lib’s going to try next, legislate taste ?
==================================================================
” It’s also brains. If you’re smart, you can read – and understand – the Times.”
]Also Jersey , I have brains enough to make my own choice NOT TO READ IT !
And so do millions of others very brainy people.
: if you are particularly intellectually lazy, you can watch Fox “News,” and then you can be especially embarrassing in educated circles, if that’s what you’re in to.”
I watch fox news and I don’t think you could say I was intellectually lazy . Why would you debate me almost every day ? Unless you’re comfortable in the lazy intellect dept ? Just yesterday you called me a smart man for picking up on FOX’s ulterior motives with Clinton, RIGHT !
==================================================================
You make yourself look like an idiot when you say all the things you said above.
And its very distasteful to say the least.
You think our soldiers are not that educated, I proved you intellectually defunct on that assertion.
You were idiotic enough to make a definite statement saying the war is a ” complete and utter failure” I proved that to be an idiotic statement.
==================================================================
And finally… “ANY IDIOT” ! would know that if the Times were such a fine paper it would not be third on the list with USA Today at the top. On top if having to downsize and scale back every year for the last 8 years in a row.
And as far as being a liberal rag goes , its true ! Because it has more subscriptions in more lib cities than any other paper
And the polls point in the same direction !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times
“The Times has been variously accused of having a liberal or a conservative bias,[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. According to a 2007 survey of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% believe the Times has a liberal slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[28] In summer 2004, the newspaper’s then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece in which he concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues, gay marriage being the example he used. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper’s cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City. [29] ”
So do yourself and all of us a favor and stop calling people idiots for not seeing things your way !
I can and will come up with plenty of examples of idiocy on your part if you wish, and you know I’ll do it !
Besides that, you’re not calling Eric an idiot , are you ?
Micky, I’m gonna make this a little personal here.
I’m really getting sick and effing tired of you coming after decent peoples intellect.
Stop condescending the Times.
Eric, like all good conservatives, bashes the Times endlessly. I think he just figures it’s good copy. I called him out on that on this post because I believe that it is beneath him.
JMJ
I think Eric bashes the times for more than just good copy Jersey.
I honestly believe he wouldnt even wipe his ass with it any more than I would.
Its not beneath him. It just points out his knowledge of the facts.
No condescending here buddy, just the facts I presented above.
But what is condescending and butt kissy at the same time is when you say this;
“I called him out on that on this post because I believe that it is beneath him.”
Basically what you said is that its beneath him to be an idiot.
Go ahead and squirm away. Now whos the idiot ?
Jersey, until you can come up with something other than your two, equally empty justifications to lift your nose toward people who don’t read the times, blow your condescending attitude out your ass. ‘I have good taste’ and ‘You’re stupid’ are the exact same things European elite class used to justify there own superiority.
In short, You are not Lord!. You are not King or Queen! Just because you say so does not make it true! You are a self-aggrandizing ponce!
Alternately, I would say only a braindead liberal couldn’t see all the editorializing and data mined ‘facts’ the Slimes uses. Not too mention all the hit job stories or the false front page stories that get a retraction on page nine-hundred and fifty-three.
Just a little humility here.
I too call people idiots Jeresy. Dont get me wrong.
I myself by no means have cornered the market on tasteful conversation.
What I must pointout in your case is that I do not issue “all encompassing” statements or generalizations by calling individuals idiots for doing what a lot of other people do. They may not all diss the times fopr exactly the same reasons.
If we dont all see it or do it your way we are tasteless stupid and idiotic ?
Just because someone doesnt read the times they have ” POOR ” tatse ? WTF ?
People with ” GOOD ” taste do ?
Unless you’re very young, you probably remember Charley the Tuna. Charley was the animated character who spent most of his time trying to get caught by Star Kist. His strategy was to convince them that he had good taste.
The commercials always ended with the lowering of a hook bearing a “sorry” sign while a voice said, “Sorry Charley, Star Kist doesn’t want tunas with good taste, Star Kist wants tunas that taste good.”
Kapeesh ?
I believe that bashing the Times is idiotic, whoever does it. I think some people have a strategic motive in doing so, but it’s still idiotic, even though they are not idiots. But I think your average shmuck who hates the Times does so because he or she is told over and over again that the Times is somehow a crooked, virulently liberal establishment. Neither is true.
This all said, you are once again engaging in pedantics, Micky, and I’m really sick of that. We all make generalizations when we blog. The form demands it. I can not devote enough time to this to infinitely qualify and quantify everything I write. And on top of that, when you infer generalizations as specific universalities, in this case, you are morally equivicating – it’s okay to universally and blanketly bash the Times but not anything else – and that’s just stupid.
JMJ
Hallowed,
“Jersey, until you can come up with something other than your two, equally empty justifications to lift your nose toward people who don’t read the times, blow your condescending attitude out your ass. ‘I have good taste’ and ‘You’re stupid’ are the exact same things European elite class used to justify there own superiority.”
Hmmm… I smell insecurity. Careful Hallowed, I predate on the insecure. ;)
“In short, You are not Lord!”
I’m not? Huh. So why do I have this glowing robe, big white beard, and a son named Jesus? LOL!
“Alternately, I would say only a braindead liberal couldn’t see all the editorializing and data mined ‘facts’ the Slimes uses. Not too mention all the hit job stories or the false front page stories that get a retraction on page nine-hundred and fifty-three.”
Okay Hallowed. Give me an example. Put your money where your insecurity is.
Micky,
“Just a little humility here.
I too call people idiots Jeresy. Dont get me wrong.
I myself by no means have cornered the market on tasteful conversation.”
Thank you. You have just now reestablished by faith in humanity. Seriously.
“Just because someone doesnt read the times they have ” POOR ” tatse ? WTF ?”
I meant that.
The Times is among the world’s finest papers, from news, to fine dining and the arts, travel, culture, editorials, to pretty much everything except sports (the NYT has the uncanny ability to make sports reporting boring), the Times truly is the Paper of Record. If you neglect keeping up with the Times, then you truly are not keeping up with the times. ;) You guys know all this. C’mon.
JMJ
C’mon this.
These are the editors own words on top of some more facts.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63
THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004
“OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.)”
“Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right. ”
We are not talking about make up tips or a restaurant guide Jersey. We are talking politics here not to fine dining and the arts, travel, culture, and all that other fluff crap.
You asked Hallowed for an example ?
Here ! I’ll take the liberty !
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35
The New York Times, one of the most influential newspapers in the world, affects not only its readership’s perception of world events (daily circulation is about 1.6 million), but also has significant impact on the news judgement and editorial perspective of other media. The caliber of accuracy, balance and thoroughness in this publication are, therefore, of particular importance.
JANUARY 4, 2008 Media Miss a ‘Core Issue’
DECEMBER 14, 2007 CAMERA Prompts New York Times Correction on Annapolis Talks
AUGUST 21, 2007 New York Times Implies Israel’s Road Plan is Racist
JULY 17, 2007 Times Magazine Profile of Livni Mangles Key Issues
JULY 3, 2007 New York Times Publishes Photo of Smiling Terrorist
JUNE 18, 2007 Farewell to the Minister of Disinformation, Mustafa Barghouti
MAY 14, 2007 NYT Blunders on Jerusalem Building
APRIL 26, 2007 New York Times Publishes CNI Propaganda Ad
MARCH 28, 2007 New York Times Wrong on Israel’s Origin and “Right of Return”
MARCH 22, 2007 Former NY Times Editor Reveals his Bias in Anti-Israel Magazine
MARCH 21, 2007 Kristof’s Blame-Israel Rant
MARCH 16, 2007 Peace Now’s Blunder: Erred on Ma’ale Adumim Land by 15,900 Percent
MARCH 12, 2007 New York Times Denying Palestinian Hate Indoctrination
JANUARY 29, 2007 UPDATED: Al Dura Reprise
JANUARY 2, 2007 The Bethlehem Formula — Using the Christmas Story to Defame Israel
DECEMBER 12, 2006 In IHT, Holocaust Denial is Legitimized as Alternate “Theory”
DECEMBER 2, 2006 UPDATE: Peace Now Map Based Only on Palestinian Claims
NOVEMBER 27, 2006 False Claim by Abbas Goes Unchallenged
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 CAMERA Prompts New York Times Correction on Palestinian Rally Photo
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 New York Times Mangles Sheba Farms Issue
SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 Questioning the Number of Civilian Casualties in Lebanon
AUGUST 9, 2006 Updated: A Reprise: Media Photo Manipulation
JULY 27, 2006 New York Times Story on UN Position Hit by Israel Omits Crucial Context
JULY 12, 2006 New York Times Tilts Toward Palestinians
JULY 12, 2006 The IHT Corrects Error on Palestinian Casualties
JUNE 30, 2006 CAMERA Letter Published in New York Times
JUNE 29, 2006 Update on Media Coverage of Prisoners’ Document
JUNE 26, 2006 New York Times Apologetics for Terror
JUNE 25, 2006 Prisoners’ Document: Peace Plan or “Phased Plan”?
JUNE 12, 2006 Israel Should Not Be Presumed Guilty of Gaza Beach Deaths
MAY 16, 2006 New York Times Publishes Moving Article About Israeli Terror Victim
MAY 11, 2006 Human Interest Stories in New York Times Skewed Toward Palestinians
APRIL 19, 2006 Tony Judt, the New York Times, and the anti-Israel bandwagon
NOVEMBER 9, 2005 NY Times, IHT Correct: Rabin Assassin Not a Settler
SEPTEMBER 17, 2005 New York Times Reports Palestinian Obligations as Israeli Demands
SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 IHT Fabricates Purpose of Bush-Sharon Meeting
SEPTEMBER 9, 2005 The New York Times Sort of Corrects Distorted Rice Interview
SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 Covering Up for NPR
SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 The Times’ Compromised Coverage of the Columbia Controversy
AUGUST 29, 2005 David Bar-Illan on Joel Brinkley
AUGUST 27, 2005 New York Times Interviewers Cook Rice Statements
AUGUST 24, 2005 Mystery About Henry Siegman Solved in New York Sun
JULY 29, 2005 New York Times Anti-Israel Bias in Editorials As Bad As Ever
JULY 13, 2005 Double Standards on International Terrorism at the New York Times and AP
JULY 11, 2005 New York Times Reports as Fact Anti-Israel Propaganda
JULY 6, 2005 Updated: Letters and Limitations
JUNE 23, 2005 Human Interest Tilt Continues at New York Times
MAY 31, 2005 New York Times Misrepresents Hamas
MAY 30, 2005 CAMERA Prompts New York Times Correction
MAY 13, 2005 Study of New York Times Coverage Severely Flawed
APRIL 27, 2005 Daniel Okrent’s False Symmetry
APRIL 11, 2005 The Temple Mount’s Jewish History: More Than a Matter of Faith
APRIL 8, 2005 New York Times Exonerates Columbia Professor Joseph Massad
FEBRUARY 7, 2005 The New York Times Buries al Dura Story
JANUARY 30, 2005 CAMERA Obtains NYT/IHT Correction on Palestinian Refugees
JANUARY 16, 2005 The New York Times’ Knee-Jerk Editorial Bias
JANUARY 13, 2005 The Worst of Times
DECEMBER 24, 2004 New York Times Omits Major Reason Christians are Leaving Bethlehem
DECEMBER 15, 2004 The New York Times; Too Little, Too Late on Incitement
OCTOBER 23, 2004 New York Times Quneitra Claims Contradicted by Times Own Reporting
OCTOBER 18, 2004 Selective Quotes Distort Intent of Sharon’s Gaza Withdrawal
OCTOBER 7, 2004 Media Survey: Reporting All Sides?
JULY 12, 2004 Hague Ruling Front Page News; Palestinian Attack Takes Second Place
JUNE 15, 2004 The New York Times covers (and covers up for) Palestinian child bombers
MAY 19, 2004 Journalists Fall Prey to Palestinian Booby-Traps
MAY 18, 2004 New York Sun Hits Tom Friedman Distortions
APRIL 18, 2004 CAMERA Obtains Correction at New York Times
APRIL 18, 2004 UPDATED CAMERA ALERT: Inaccurate Terms in Coverage of Bush Statement
APRIL 9, 2004 UPDATED CAMERA ALERT: Partisan Editing Skews San Francisco Chronicle Article on Teen Bomber
APRIL 1, 2004 Partisan Reporting at AP
MARCH 29, 2004 New York Times Underscores Accuracy Essentials in Op-Eds
MARCH 29, 2004 UPDATED: Tom Friedman’s Grudging Correction
FEBRUARY 9, 2004 CAMERA ALERT: Tom Friedman Hits New Low
JANUARY 5, 2004 New York Times’ Correction on Judaism’s Holiest Site Misleading
DECEMBER 15, 2003 CAMERA ALERT: Token Coverage of EU Study
DECEMBER 12, 2003 CAMERA Obtains Correction at New York Times
DECEMBER 3, 2003 CAMERA Obtains Correction at New York Times
OCTOBER 14, 2003 ADVERTISEMENT: When is a Terrorist NOT a Terrorist?
OCTOBER 1, 2003 Double Standards in Headlines
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 UPDATED: “Terrorism” as Defined by the New York Times
SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 UPDATED: New York Times Wrongly Claims No Injuries From Qassam Rockets
JULY 30, 2003 Yossi Beilin’s “Road Map” Confusion
JULY 20, 2003 EYE ON THE MEDIA: Access and Ethics at the New York Times
JULY 11, 2003 UPDATED: Journalists Veer Off ‘Road Map,’ Crash Into Cease-Fire
JULY 7, 2003 New York Times Turns to Comic-Book Journalist on Arab-Israeli Conflict
JUNE 15, 2003 New York Times Veers Off the ‘Road Map’
JUNE 13, 2003 Newspaper Headlines Omit Terror Perpetrators
JUNE 13, 2003 The Message at the New York Times – Blame the Victim
MAY 23, 2003 New York Times Refuses to Report the Straight Facts
APRIL 9, 2003 New York Times Headline Writer Tosses Aside Impartiality
JANUARY 15, 2003 New York Times Hits Year-End False Notes
JANUARY 3, 2003 CAMERA Op-Ed: Blaming the Media, With Reason
DECEMBER 14, 2002 New York Times Alert: Small Words with a Big Impact
DECEMBER 5, 2002 New York Times Buys into Saudi Lies
NOVEMBER 18, 2002 Thumbs Up to James Bennet
NOVEMBER 4, 2002 EYE ON THE MEDIA: New Yorker Bests Times on Anti-Semitism Coverage
JULY 28, 2002 CAMERA ALERT: Times Op-Ed Desk Guts Criticism of U.N.
JULY 24, 2002 CAMERA ALERT: Coverage of Raid on Shehadeh Requires Context
JULY 22, 2002 Articles on Israeli Victims of Terror Give Context to Israel’s War on Terrorism
MAY 1, 2002 STUDY: New York Times Skews Israeli-Palestinian Crisis
APRIL 30, 2002 ADVERTISEMENT: The Root of Palestinian Terrorism is Hate Education
MARCH 22, 2002 EYE ON THE MEDIA: More Times Tomfoolery
MARCH 20, 2002 New York Times’ Double Standards and Lack of Balance
FEBRUARY 22, 2002 EYE ON THE MEDIA: The Unbearable Urge to Sympathize
DECEMBER 18, 2001 EYE ON THE MEDIA: Tony One-Note
DECEMBER 7, 2001 EYE ON THE MEDIA: Rewriting Camp David; The Sequel
OCTOBER 11, 2001 When Terror is Not “Terror”
SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 Thumbs Up to Clyde Haberman
AUGUST 20, 2001 EYE ON THE MEDIA: Lobbyists With a Cause
AUGUST 3, 2001 EYE ON THE MEDIA: The Diplomats’ Hottest Videotape
JULY 27, 2001 CAMERA ALERT: Faulty Timeline and Partisan Sources at the New York Times
JULY 25, 2001 New York Times Mislabels as “Vigilantes” Group that Murdered Palestinians
JULY 17, 2001 New York Times Lax on Covering Palestinian Bombing Attempts, Aggression
JULY 12, 2001 CAMERA Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal European Edition: “The Real Story on Israel”
JULY 8, 2001 Times Interview Omits Arafat’s Praise for Suicide Killer of 21
JULY 1, 2001 BACKGROUNDER: Does Israel Use “Palestinian” Water?
JUNE 22, 2001 New York Times: Successful “Cease-fire” Includes Palestinian Mortar and Grenade Attacks, Murder of Israeli
MAY 10, 2001 CAMERA Column: Syria’s Quneitra Hoax
APRIL 23, 2001 Thumbs Up to William Safire
NOVEMBER 15, 2000 Wall Street Journal and New York Times Correct Inaccurate Stories
OCTOBER 26, 2000 CAMERA ALERT: New York Times Skews Sharon’s Temple Mount Visit
OCTOBER 25, 2000 New York Times Covers up Call to “Kill the Jews”
OCTOBER 16, 2000 New York Times Again the Picture of Bias
OCTOBER 13, 2000 Jews Rampage, Arabs Demonstrate
JULY 14, 2000 EYE ON THE MEDIA: Media Mute on the Temple Mount Desecrations
JULY 3, 2000 EYE ON THE MEDIA: Viorst, Times Cavalier with Facts
JUNE 16, 2000 EYE ON THE MEDIA: Whitewashing Hizballah
DECEMBER 14, 1999 Media Ducks Arab Anti-Semitism in Suha Story
JUNE 1, 1999 Palestinian Textbooks Teach Anti-Israel Hate
NOVEMBER 13, 1998 BACKGROUNDER: Wye and the Palestinian Covenant
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 West Bank Water and New York Times Stereotypes
APRIL 21, 1998 New York Times Censors PA Incitement Against Israel
JANUARY 19, 1998 New York Times Twists Oslo
JUNE 25, 1997 BACKGROUNDER: Land, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel
APRIL 27, 1997 Schmemann Leads the Herd
FEBRUARY 10, 1997 In Their Own Words
FEBRUARY 7, 1997 Questions for the Times
JUNE 7, 1996 Media Votes No On Israeli Democracy
OCTOBER 12, 1995 Media Bury Israeli Dead
SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 Conscience a la Mode
JULY 6, 1994 Fabricated Quotes Fit to Print at New York Times
JANUARY 31, 1994 Mindless in Gaza
APRIL 3, 1992 Middle East Warp
To view the corrected, uncorrected and dismal corrections on New York Times, click below:
Corrected
Uncorrected
Lets make this easy on all of us Jersey.
There are a hell of a lot more examples of liberal bias on the part of the NY Times than there are examples of being neutral.
Give a rest, you’re starting to look like an idiot
Micky, every paper makes mistakes, especially large papers like the Times. That’s why they all publish corrections – every day. But most of what your pointing to here are differences of opinion and perspective. And the antisemtism argument? Puh-lease. There are probably more Jews working for the Times then you or I will ever know in our entire lives times ten!
JMJ
Its the types of mistakes Jersey ! Just look at the list ! Go to the link and click on each story. Historical facts in print Jersey . The stuff you hate the most !
Also there are only 3 conservative op-ed writers for the Times out of 10.
Gee ! And you know what ? Its been that way for years now.
And the point of all this is that you said;
“Only an idiot would think the Times is a “liberal” paper.”
Really now ! I just showed you the editors OWN words exactly contradicting you !
Now just give – it – a- rest.
Liberal is in the eye of the beholder, Micky. You guy you cited sounds like a young earth creationist lunatic. As for the list, as I said, most of it is just matters of opinion.
JMJ
That creationist lunatic Okrent was named public editor for The New York Times, serving much of the same function as an ombudsman. He held this position until May 2005. He is known for coining “Okrent’s Law” during his tenure as a comment he made about his new job. It states: “The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true,” referring to the phenomenon of the press providing legitimacy to fringe or minority viewpoints. (that would be a libs forte`)
I will take the editors word over your word A-N-Y D-A-Y
The utmost arrogance is shown when you assert that you know more about the paper than the editor himself. Isaid you were begging to look like an idiot, well you finally arrived there.
Oh Oh Oh my god ! Now “liberal” is in the eye of the beholder ?
Just yesterday you said you could spot a libertarian at a hundred paces. And then he said he wasnt one. So much for “eye of the beholder , huh ?
Is this another lesson in reality Jersey ? Man you’re a crappy dancer ! Just stepping all over your own toes.
Liberal is not a concept like beauty. Its a doctrine of political belief that is clealy defined in its applications.
All the mistakes on the list are supposed to be news stories ! Not opinions.
That’s what op – eds are for! So no ! they are not just opinions !
Its supposed to be NEWS ! And they slanted it plain and clear as the nose in front of you.
And the balance on the op-ed columns is not opinion ! Its a FACT that N.Y. Times has always held more leftist op-ed authors than cons .
As all my irrefutable evidence shows !
Now, give yourself a little dignity and back off as if you had some sense
Micky,
I really don’t care about his opinion that the Times is “liberal.” But here, let me temper my argument a bit. As Stephen Colbert says,, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.” That being said, if the NYT is truly the Paper of Record, and that record is simply a telling of reality – of what’s going on in the world – then of course it will seem liberal. And let’s go one further. Let’s say that most conservative undergrads are not likely to major in a disipline like journalism, but rather business, government, law, or medicine. Liberal-leaning people are more likely to get into say sciences, arts, law, academia and journalism. On the other hand, editors and columnists come in all stripes, and owners will probably tend to be more conservative, thus you have balance. This is well-known as a truism regarding all journalism. But to say that the NYT is in and of itself “Liberal” is just silly. It’s a newspaper, not a hippy.
JMJ
Micky,
“All the mistakes on the list are supposed to be news stories ! Not opinions.”
You missed my point. The list itself is mostly a list of opinions, not the stories to which it refers, aside from the columns and editorials. Many of the items are he said/she said sort of things. Many are just spin. The vast majority are are just silliness, like the ridiculous and scurrilous charges of ant-semitism.
JMJ
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW B.S !!!!!!!!!!
Everything is verifiable in print . And it refers you to the stories themselves !
I’m gonna call you “ostrich” from now on.
You cant even be honest
Dont ever quote Colbert to me again.
I’m not some bimbo you met in a bar.
and of itself “Liberal” is just silly. It’s a newspaper, not a hippy.
pedantic semantics.
Its ‘liberal newspaper’ made by liberals, owned and operated.by liberals and used by liberals.
I’m a hippie. A conservative one who likes money.
Don’t like Colbert? Huh. I thought everyone liked him. I think he’s brilliant.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the Times. It is made by union printers and binders, not the most liberal bunch in the world. It’s stories come from journalists, contributors, letter writers, editors and columnists, a differse bunch. It is run by publishers, chiefs, editors, etc, again a diverse bunch. And it is owned mostly by an old family trust and is a publically traded corporation. So, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about here. If the Times was so full of lies, it would have been sued into nonexistence years ago.
JMJ
“differse”
What a strange error…
JMJ
Jmj said;
“We’ll have to agree to disagree about the Times.”
No , we dont have to do anything. And stop being so freeking petty. I didnt actually mean the physical construction of the paper.
Colbert is a clown, its what he does. John Stewart is also.
But just like those who watch Colbert and Stewart to get their news, so do the Times readers.
I can watch Chris Rock because hes so stupid hes funny, just like Al Franken.
As far as ownership goes, I do know what I’m talking about. The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company ( moonbats for decades)
That family trust is widely divested, Micky. You should know that.
Stewart and Colbert are two of the finest comedians in the business.
Chris Rock and Al Franken are both brilliant men.
The New York Times is the finest newspaper in the country.
I can’t say any of these things about most conservatives these days.
JMJ
I agree, Stewart and Colbert are both hilarious, as is Chris Rock. Just because you and I like them doesn’t make them an authority on anything. They are not Lords, either.
You continue to asert that the Times is the finest paper in the country, without backing it up with anything. You do nothing but parrot they’re own advertising. Proof that it works, I suppose.
For some comparison, let me make some statements and see if you can find the problem with them.
Goerge Bush is the finest POTUS ever.
Goerge Will is the funniest and most brilliant writer in the business.
The New York Post is the finest paper in the country.
I said it, it must be true.
Hallowed, comedy is irony. Whether it be tragic or harmless or just plain nonsensical, what is ironic is what makes us laugh. Stewart and Colbert, Rock and Franken, find the ironies out there and point them out to us, and we laugh. They are authorities on irony. Interestingly enough, there’s a lot of irony out there these days.
As for the Times, I don’t have to back up anything. Among most all educated people, the New York Times is considered the finest newspaper in America, if not the world. It has won more Pulitzers than any other paper. It is widely read and considered the must-read newspaper in what many people consider the most important city in the world.
George Bush is a tragic joke, and not a very funny one.
George Will is a very smart snake oil salesman.
The New York Post has the best sports (and gossip, if you’re into that sorta thing) and is otherwise the epitome of cheap, yellow, sensationalist, low-brow journalism.
You said it, it must be wrong. ;)
JMJ
“can’t say any of these things about most conservatives these days.”
So what if you cant say it ? This coming from a lib matters ?
Colbert and Stewart only point out irony, Chris preaches to the choir.
Franken is a bonfied idiot.
Cosby , Prior, Sam Kinesen, Don Rickles, Robin Williams, those are comedians
The Times is not the finest. It was a long Time ago.
Wall street journal and USA Today kick its ass.
Hallowed is right Jersey.
This happens constantly. You never present anything but your word and stomp like a little baby.
ITS TRUE ! ITS TRUE ! ITS TRUE !.
Back it up with something or take your rattle and…
I’m waiting
*crickets*
Like I said, I don’t have to back anything I said up. Most educated people agree with me. If you guys don’t, than tough tiddlies.
JMJ
If you say so Jersey.
Now, should a build an alter for you ?
A lot of educated people still dont know right from wrong or up from down Jersey.
Being well educated has absolutly nothing in the world whatsoever to do with this.
And it just makes your case look even weaker when you still expect us to just believe you.
I gave you over a hundred “na na nanny boo boos ” up above.
And they beat out your ” tough tiddlies”
Even the Times editor who was there for 2 years says its a liberal newspaper.
And even though it does lie sometimes and get it wrong by accident.
A lot of just as well educated people know for a fact that it slants its stories to the left.
40% of newspaper readers in the country think so. Only 18% think it leans right. And the other 42 think its even keeled.
But of course if you ask around in Jerseys circle its the fairest paper in the world.
Now , yes, the Times is a very accomplished paper, Barry Bonds is very accomplished baseball player, and Marion Jones won some gold medals.
JMJ, You are killing me… do genetic fallacies, ambiguities, faulty causations, false appeals, appeals to emotions, invincible ignorance, pure ignorance, inconsistencies, straw men, red herrings, hasty generalizations, provincialism, is/ought confusion, and questional claims mean anything?. The only false logic I haven’t seen in two days is the “two wrongs make a right”. Yellow journalism is replaced by demogoguery – Oprah and Montel are king and queen, and Hannity is the Jack of Spades – use facts to bludgeon and not coerce or build consensus. What is sad about blogs, talk radio, newspapers, and talk shows is that people can take a position and not be held accountable. The definition of “is” has skewed all critical thinking. Did “might make right” so many years ago? No necessarily, but it sure tempered the ignorant masses…
Micky, yes, build me an alter. You don’t have to tell me how idiot Americans think, just like I shouldn’t have to tell you. If you don’t like the Times, then fine.
Al, what are you talking about?
JMJ
Al is saying you’re full of it unless you can back it up with more than your opinion.
Unlike you I dont profess to tell anyone how Americans think.
Once again you have proven you cant get out of this one with just your word so it has boiled down to “well if you dont like it , too bad”.
That is a far cry from all you had to say earlier which you could not back up with one grain of fact or example.
At least have the decency to not insult the intelligence of those of us on this blog by acting as if somehow you have prevailed in this matter in any form or fashion other that to look like an uninformed biased idiot who generalizes the whole population as such only because they have proven you wrong.
If you were half a human you would just say; “hey! I’m bias, because I want the lib message out and supported ! And the NYT is right there helping me”
That would be genuine and believable.
But this crap that you say everyone should swallow just because you say so is about as empty and useless as it gets in any forum.
Well, maybe Al could try specifying what he’s talking about rather than just proffer his broad vague opinions, huh?
Micky, it is my personal opinion that the people who attack the Times come in to stripes – those that don’t like well-written journalism about reality because it does not conform with their ideologies, and those who are too stupid to read the Times in the first place. That’s it.
JMJ
JMJ, I am one of the Soldier. I have inferred from your earlier comments that you consider, as a general rule, that current Soldiers are uneducated. What I mentioned in my previous post are terms associated with critical thinking and logic. You won’t find these terms in the gray lady, but you will find examples of each illogical fallacy in most editorial writings.
When I was a cadet at West Point, the senior leadership force-fed the NYT to us – we had to read it every day and pay for it. In retrospect, they were exercising one of Sun Tsu’s principles – keep your friends close and enemies closer. The gray lady is no friend to the military or anyone who uses logic to make decisions. I still occasionally read it and watch the Communist News Network to stay abreast of the dangers we expect to face from within, because as a Soldier, I am sworn to protect US citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.
Before you jump to conclusions (another logic fallacy) I do not believe you are the enemy, yet. However, if yellow journalism coupled with the current demagoguery (taking advantage of people’s emotions and prejudices) continue to thrive, we are a nation in trouble, and ignorant people will prevent freedom. That’s why we have a Republic and not a Democracy – because our forefathers had the foresight to understand the weakness of emotions.
You may not have recognized the word “demogoguery” because I inadvertently misspelled it in my earlier post. AL
And as you stumble over the first two sentences of my post, I concede to projecting an uneducated response… such as “alter” and “to stripes”…. too shay… we know what we mean…
Jersey !This is not about ” personal opinion”
As you’ve said before ” I blog for fun”
I dont see how you categorize “fun” as looking like a jackass with only an opinion when its painfully obvious to even idiots as you call them that we are looking for truth and answers in order to better our country, or a least our understanding of it.And not opinions which are ultimatly useless in any debate.
You brought forth in the begging that your position on the credibilty and integrity of the NYT was fact and that we should just take your word for it.
That is all you have been saying for two days now and how has it proved your point , made your case,or anything other than that all you have is a biased opinion ?
Instead of blogging we should just walk into the arena and tell each other we both have our opinions and thats that and then turn around and leave.
Because that is all you have done. Which is pretty much nothing.
Oh brother, we have an intellectual here, huh? Okay Al, I’ll bite.
“JMJ, I am one of the Soldier. I have inferred from your earlier comments that you consider, as a general rule, that current Soldiers are uneducated.”
Enlistees and draftees, as a general rule, historically and to today, be cause of their age and demographic background, tend not to be very well educated. That’s just a plain fact of life. You can’t be all that educated if you’ve never been to college or university. And the education of the poorer rural and urban tends to be less than the suburban and exurban middle class and above. This is all very simple to understand, and rather inarguable. And remember, I’m talking about enlistees, not officers, who are a small minority of the force (well less than ten percent). After service, soldiers tend to do just pretty well academically, which is often why they sign up in the first place. Unfortunately, they also suffer higher rated of drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness, domestic violence, and mental illness after serving in war. If you don’t know any of this, may I suggest a litle thingy called the “Google.” It’s really handy.
“What I mentioned in my previous post are terms associated with critical thinking and logic. You won’t find these terms in the gray lady, but you will find examples of each illogical fallacy in most editorial writings.”
??? Won’t find these terms??? Do you mean, won’t find “critical thinking and logic,” because if that’s what you mean, then you have just proved to me that you are incapable of critical thinking and logic…
“The gray lady is no friend to the military or anyone who uses logic to make decisions. I still occasionally read it and watch the Communist News Network to stay abreast of the dangers we expect to face from within, because as a Soldier, I am sworn to protect US citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.”
You’re a nut. That’s my logical conclusion. What the heck is “communist” about CNN??? And since when is it the duty of the Fourth Estate to be a “friend of the military.” Are you even an American??? Have you ever taken a history, civics, or constitution class???
“… demagoguery (taking advantage of people’s emotions and prejudices)…”
You have the audacity to assume that I don’t know what demagoguery is??? If you are so poor a judge of character that you can’t tell if a person is literate or not, than you shouldn’t be debating me. I’ll verbally bury you.
At least you realized that I am above critiquing grammar.
Micky, just because American cons think the NYT is somehow a “liberal” bastion and is incessantly errant doesn’t make it so. Your “proof” was a list of trivia, pedantics, irresponsible accusations, and irrational hatred. The NYT is the finest paper in America, is rather mainstream, and is mostly just NEWS – you know, NEWS – “stuff that happens,” “matters of note,” occurances,” “happenings”??? If the NEWS is such that it constantly proves that failures of conservatism, then just maybe conservatism is the problem and not the Times, huh Micky?
JMJ
JMJ said;
“Enlistees and draftees, as a general rule, historically and to today, be cause of their age and demographic background, tend not to be very well educated. That’s just a plain fact of life. ”
No Jersey ! Be honest ! You said ” Servicemen’ are not all that educated !
And I proved you wrong !
Also , if its a plain fact of life it must be easy to prove !
So shut or put up !
Remember this ? You never gave one piece of anything to contrast it in any way other than your opinion !
The only reason I cut and pasted it was so Al could see it and just how stubbornly childish you are.
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/4996_0_6_0_C/
“In the modern American military, between 93 and 95 percent of current recruits have high school diplomas, compared with 75 to 85 percent of their military-age civilian counterparts. Those averages are based on far too many studies to cite here, but no one on either side of the political fence is disputing the numbers
According to a U.S. Department of Defense document, Who is Volunteering for Today’s Military, “nearly two-thirds of today’s recruits are drawn from the top-half of America in math and verbal aptitudes.”
According to a just-published study by Dr. Tom Kane with the Heritage Foundation, “In 2004, 92.1 percent of active-duty officer [commissioned officers, lieutenants and above] accessions held baccalaureate degrees or higher. From 2000 to 2005, between 10 percent and 17 percent of active-duty officer accessions held advanced degrees, and between 35 percent and 45 percent of the active-duty officer corps held advanced degrees. This indicates that officers continued their education during the course of their military service.”
Moreover, the study indicates approximately seven percent of enlisted recruits between 2003 and 2005 have some college under the belts coming into the military, and 11 percent of active-duty enlistees in 2004 had some college experience. Many of today’s enlisted soldiers in fact hold degrees prior to entering service.
Fact is, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines today are smart: The smartest we’ve ever had, and certainly the brightest bunch on average taken from those in the general population who age-wise are eligible for military service. Numbers don’t lie, though politicians might.”
Still think they’re uneducated ?
Actually it would be you who is uneducated on the facts.
==================================================================
JMJ said;
If you don’t know any of this, may I suggest a litle thingy called the “Google.” It’s really handy.”
ONCE AGAIN JERSEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSABILITY TO DO YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU DO THE GOOGLE ! GOT IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
==================================================================
As far as your last paragraph goes.
It just proves my point even more. You have nothing but bla bla bla and freeking BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !
I provide examples and documents that are real.
Al you have is your own petty little reality, which is also known as an opinion.
I have shown you polls, stats, articles by the hundreds and quite frankly I am damn proud to of made you look like a complete and utter failure in your attempt to even get one thing across except for the fact that you have an opinion which is not all that impressive either.
Yes, Micky, Servicemen, enlistees, draftees, etc. More pedantics, huh? As a general rule it stands.
And now they are accepting more class IV recruits than since the draft days of Vietnam. And if the educational attainment of todays’ soldiers was so great, then their unemployment rate wouldn’t be so high: http://veterans.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?pageid=24&release_id=10794
You haven’t shown me squat.
You just can’t handle the truth when it doesn’t suit you – and that’s why you hate the Times.
JMJ
I failed to mention, I agree with your comment about McCain strategy – and I’m a little disappointed in some of Huckabee’s comments. However, when you laud NYT and CNN and attack Fox and Wash Times readers as lazy or intellectually inept, you should accept that logic will be thrown at you.
Again, your arguments are based on emotion and not logic. Micky has already provided cogent arguments about military education, liberalism in the NYT, and repeated demonstrations of your invincible ignorance. I didn’t say you wouldn’t find examples of illogical fallacies in the NYT – I said you wouldn’t find the “terms”. So, you have effectively pulled the “straw man” fallacy. And saying that I am a nut is a genetic fallacy (ad hominem abusive)…except maybe I am a nut. Of course, it was Micky who made most of the arguments, and I’m not convinced he’s a nut.
I have been enlisted, commissioned, Active Army, part time National Guard, full time National Guard, and Active Army again. I have an advanced degree in Education, but that doesn’t mean I have any common sense or logic whatsoever. I found that most of my classmates, and especially my instructors in advanced education, are narrow-minded, illogical, elitists. I have not only taken classes on history, civics, and the constitution, I have lived them – both on the battlefield in two different wars, as a Youth Director for disadvantaged youth, on the streets during civil disturbances from floods, tornadoes, MLK Day and Freaknik, and day-to-day as a taxpaying, voting citizen. Attacking me personally does not win arguments, it merely confuses the issues.
OK, so there is a fine line between Communism and Socialism – maybe I should call it the Socialist News Network… or the BBNN (guess who’s getting bashed?) One of the best things I learned about communication in the military, and in business and personal relationships for that matter, is that you can’t receive if your thumb is always on transmit. You have accused others of being insecure. A classic example of insecurity is not having strength of conviction to consider alternate opinions. Wow, this conversation took a turn… AL
I went to the link you provided and it really doesnt say anything about veterans unemployment rates being a result of our troops being “not that educated’
Nothing at all !
Heres the paragraph you probably got that from. Which in all reality as per in english as quoted is just Larry Craigs opinion, thats all. Even though he’s probably right, it still does not prove your claim that our servicemen are “not that educated”
Sen. Larry Craig’s “Views and Estimates” letter on the proposed VA budget for 2008 – page 2
The VWIP grants are competitively awarded to entities to provide targeted employment services for specific groups within the veteran population, such as recently separated veterans. Given that young, recently separated veterans continue to experience higher unemployment rates than non-veterans of the same age group, I support an additional $150,000 for this program, for a total of $7.501 million.
This piss poor attempt compared to the conclusive documents and evidence I have shown you is at best laughable
And then theres this;
“You just can’t handle the truth when it doesn’t suit you – and that’s why you hate the Times.
As a matter of fact , I showed you the truth and I handled it right in to your face.
My research is just that. All you have is an opinion of our troops which has been spawned by ignorant hatred of anything that doesnt fit into your small preconcocted world of hate for things you know little of.
By the way Jersey, what truth have you shown me ?
Al,
“I failed to mention, I agree with your comment about McCain strategy – and I’m a little disappointed in some of Huckabee’s comments.”
Hey thanks!
“However, when you laud NYT and CNN and attack Fox and Wash Times readers as lazy or intellectually inept, you should accept that logic will be thrown at you.”
Okay, throw it at me. I’m waiting.
“Again, your arguments are based on emotion and not logic.”
Don’t try that sleazy con bait ‘n switch on me. You won’t meet many people more logical than I. I am a dry, pragmatic, logical person. I am an atheist, as I only believe what can be proven or logically deduced. I hold objective ethics over arbitrary religious morality. Though I am a progressive and liberal, I am a realist who routinely splits his tickets at the polls – and may well do so in the presidential election this year if the congress goes too far Dem. I’d rather grid lock than madness – or the sort of corruption we saw the past 7 years.
“Micky has already provided cogent arguments about military education,…”
No he hasn’t. he provided biased trivial nonsense. Purile emotional tripe. I proved, with plain logic that A) most soldiers are too young to be well educated, B) those that are tend to be officers who are a small number in the force, C) unemployement among young troops today is double that of their contemporary civilians, D) recruiting today is well known to be concentrated on the poor and therefore poorly educated, and there are serious rumors of test-cheating, drug-teast cheating, lying about criminal backgrounds, etc. Again, no logic, just silly patriotic emotional nonsense.
“… liberalism in the NYT, and repeated demonstrations of your invincible ignorance.”
No, he showed an article from an unhappy conservative editor who is no longer with the paper (as far as I know).
“I didn’t say you wouldn’t find examples of illogical fallacies in the NYT – I said you wouldn’t find the “terms”.”
What the h2!! is that supposed to mean? The terms??? You mean they don;t use the words “illogical fallacies”??? What are al their typrwriters missing those letters???
I still think you’re a nut. It’s not so much an insult as a casual observation.
As for your education, I can only assume you’re honest, but it tells me nothing. micky’s educated too – at culinary school. As soon as I hear “elitist,” I pretty much write you off. “Elitist” is rightwing codespeak for well-spoken, well-educated, urbane, cultured people. If those sorts of people put you off, then you’re probably not well-spoken, well-educated, urbane, or cultured.
Okay, so what’s “socialist” about CNN? C’mon, actuially say something of substance, please.
JMJ
Oh, and I never lauded CNN.
JMJ
If they were al that educated, Micky, unemployment would not be an issue. Use your head, man.
JMJ
Oh, if you guys are curious to hear what mean ol’ Jersey McJones sounds like, I’ll be callling in to a web radio show this next hour. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Naked-Politics
JMJ
Use your head, there are PHDs out of work. There are alot of educated folks out of work. Its easier to work at McDonalds than it is for these guys to get the jobs they are qualified for.
Once again, your cheesy little link does not address the educational qualifications of the unemplyed vet.
JMJ said;
“I only believe what can be proven or logically deduced.
Where ?
Your logic is as good as a wooden nickel. Dont choke on the splinters.
We want stats from outside sources dude, not your logic.
Logic is deduced only by the elements you have to work with. And you have produced no concrete elements of any persuadable value.
The only logical thing a blind man can do in a bomb factory is get the hell out !
But if he had a guide (such as a verifiable source of info) he would stand a chance.
You really should give up trying to impress upon others that yours is the final say in matters. You are authority of nothing but heresay , opinion and your own ramblings.
Elitest are those who think they are above others because we dont have the capacity to begin to undestand you.
When your positions are abundantly clear, assinine and the flaws are easily displayed you simply tell us “oh, you just dont get it”
As a matter of fact, its false discrimination based on nothing but patronizing snobbery.
You need to show examples jersey.
Cant you see that no one believes you ?
Micky, look up the unemployment numbers by educational attainment. C’mon man, you know better than that. The more educated your arem, the more likely you’re employed. Evryone knows that. it’s always been that way.
I’ll tell you who elitists are – people like GWB, blue bloods from CT who pretend to be cowboys and have evrything they ever wanted handed to them on a silver platter.
JMJ
No, those would be trust babies.
And when are you ever gonna get it through your thick skull that no one is going to take your word for it !
God knows you’ve only been told a hundred times.
As far as that dipstick radio blog goes, I’ve been listening for 20 minutes and all I hear is some chick babbling incoherantly.
From your picture I thought your voice would be deeper.
JMJ, Since you profess to be an atheist, you probably know the Bible pretty well. Regardless of my beliefs, there is a nice little verse in there that sums up my response…”no pearls before swine”. I’m not calling anyone a pig. I’m simply accepting that resources should not be wasted on those who do not appreciate their worth. (at which point, my adversary could retort, “what you have supplied is worthless”… which is my point, and the same point Micky made many posts earlier). I am right because I say I am, and anyone who disagrees is stupid, ill-informed, and idiotic. And your assessment about my being a nut is fairly accurate – make it a Betel nut so my influence will be stimulating… mentally… oh, but I already know the response, “You aren’t smart enough to make me think critically”… I think I’ll argue with Al. On a good day, I’ll agree with myself…
Jersey ! You sound like you need to quit smoking and lay of the ding dongs.
Either that or you just got done running around the block
It was just what I expected.
I like the way you spoke for every housewife in America. And had inside knowledge that they all tell everyone what they want to here.
Also as I have to give you credit for something you rarely if ever do on this blog.
And that was that you made it a point to tell the host “I think” or “its my opinion”.
Those two phrases change everything which is sort of what Al and I have been telling you.
Micky, yeah, I was out of breath. I was working in the garage on a new bathroom fixture I’m going to install and was running around back and forth between that, work, and blogging all day.
I was just offering my opinion, Micky. No need to get snippy about it.
Al, I’m still waiting for some substance here. The abstractions are starting to make me dizzy.
JMJ
Oh, and Micky, after years of drinking, smoking, and training myself to sing many years ago, and then years of rock singing, I have a very loud grumbly speaking voice. I speak from my diaphragm like most trained singers. I learned from some good ones. But my speaking voice was forever changed from that. To give you an idea – when I used to sing heavy metal, in front of the amps and all, I still used to hold the mic a few inches from my mouth. That’s how loud I am.
JMJ
Nothing snippy, just telling you what I heard. The housewife thing sounded like you were a fly on the wall of every household in America.
My wife was laughing her ass off. She said :” how the f*** does he know ?”
Shes a devout Christian and just about made me soil myself when she said that.
My point is that way too often you offer your opinion as fact because you have been and done and know so much more than anyone else. That may be great when you’re around those that love and trust you.
But political debate is not about love and trust. Surely you can agree with that.
Anyway, good for you being on the blogcast. Although it was really a bunch of opinionated projections. Which is true because you said ” I think” and “it might be” and “It could be” quite often. Which actually was quite refreshing after listening to you try to cram non substantial rhetoric down my throat for over 6 months now.
I did realize that my remark about the “housewife” was quite politically incorrect, but I meant it. Think about it, Micky. We’re hip guys with hip wives. We’re not exactly middle-America. You really can’t be where we’re from – or where Eric’s from, for that matter. I could have used a better example, though – like just “peer pressure.” I noticed the reaction I got from that comment (one I’ve made in public before) and thought, ‘How do you all presume that isn’t an issue?’ We forget that there is a vast Middle-America (Flyoverland, Jesusland, Breadbelt, Bible Belt, whatever) out there and the people aren’t so hip.
As far as the validity of polls is concerned: People answer polls wrong – those wrong answers often mirror exit polls as well – who’s around for both telephone and exit polls? Spouses, friends, family, etc. It’s simple deduction and it’s long been a popular political theory. I didn’t make it up. People say things to please other people, they say things they think people want to hear, and they weigh whom to please in a crowd and then do so. Again, basic sociology and political science 101.
Well, I’m a hunt ‘n peck typist, so I’m not that fast, but I’ll try to write more disclaimers, modifiers, and qualifiers. It is proper English, after all. Point taken.
JMJ
Really, do ever hear me saying things to please you ?
But I do agree, as wrong as it sounds. Having a black pres that goes by Obama is going to make some people think, maybe think the wrong way.
“Although it was really a bunch of opinionated projections.”
Oh, and great point! I noticed the same thing. That’s why I called. They were going on and on about Obama and Hillary and I’m thinking, “Are you guys nuts? Are you trying to lose the election?”
Micky, I can’t vote for an establishment Dem if the Hill is going to become a rubber stamp – and the indications are way too strong to ignore that prospect. If it looks like the Hill is truly going to tumble Blue, and the GOP can put up a man I think I can trust (and I do see a few possibilties) I will split Red on the presidency.
JMJ
Hey , you never know. We could find out that Hillary was a sex change recipient in 11 months. Or Bill.
Eric, JMJ, and Micky – my apologies for maybe jumping in a little too strong a little too fast…although I participate in an internet forum with a group of people I went to school with 30 years ago, this is my first venture into reading blogs and making comments. Not sure what the rules of etiquette are… I commented on another site yesterday but couldn’t figure out where I was or how I got there… rather reminds me of my younger, single days… I was smarter then, though, and not quite as sober.
Stick around Al. I think your friggin’ really bright. IMHO ;)
JMJ
Micky, you just gave me a hernia! LOL!
JMJ
After reviewing other posts, I found an exchange that united you and Micky2 – and you commented that Eric has one of if not the best conservative sites… so I followed my own advice about deductive reasoning and recognized a real person on the other side of the screen. Looking forward to future arguments. My grandson is pulling at my fingers and making it tough to type… but I’ve told my daughters to keep birthin them babies…we are losing the war of attrition… besides, if she keeps having kids, she and her husband won’t be able to afford to move out for a while, so someone will be home to do yard work and other honey do’s while I’m gone…
See ya soon Al :-)
Polite, hardcore, liberal v conservative debate here, AL. Eric, if you notice, avoids the debates. He puts stuff out keeping in mind a market of arguers who just love both the sport and the ends. I figure just keep it kosher, which is a great standard. One thing I learned – if it’s kosher it’s good. And it’s sport – but it’s not just sport – it’s intellectual exercise. Eric and Micky (and Martel too, but I can’t get him to face me and I don’t know why) are brilliant conservatives. Fortunately, I love to debate. So far, overall, I feel right.
JMJ
JMJ said;
“So far, overall, I feel right.”
Thats twice today I almost soiled myself. ;-(