New York Times Hypocrits

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should we all have to live under such an antiquated legal framework.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome to argue that here. If you've been paying any attention, you'd know that I haven't been arguing for the constitution. In fact, I've been arguing against it.

[ QUOTE ]
Youve made it clear that you are very young, and dont have much of a clue about whats going on around you now, much less of history. Children should be seen and not heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

If you want to actually argue your point (you are in a debate-heavy forum), then do it. I'm so young and naive and gosh-darn stupid it shouldn't be any trouble for you to find the errors in my logic.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The NY Times doesn't think the government should keep any secrets. I wonder if the NY Times thinks this rule applies to them? If they don't want any secrets then they should publish a list of their sources on the front page of tomorrow's issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems you don't understand the value of a free press.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. You can contemplate that value while reading a NYT issue with the next (and possibly preventible with some restraint by the press) terrorist attack that kills someone you care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point of my sentence. The point was that the NYT, or any newspaper, should not have to reveal their sources. Equating newspaper sources with government secrets is illogical. A free press is one of the cornerstones of our freedom.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The NY Times doesn't think the government should keep any secrets. I wonder if the NY Times thinks this rule applies to them? If they don't want any secrets then they should publish a list of their sources on the front page of tomorrow's issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems you don't understand the value of a free press.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. You can contemplate that value while reading a NYT issue with the next (and possibly preventible with some restraint by the press) terrorist attack that kills someone you care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point of my sentence. The point was that the NYT, or any newspaper, should not have to reveal their sources. Equating newspaper sources with government secrets is illogical. A free press is one of the cornerstones of our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Fascists don't like freedom.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt the NYT had any good answers for these questions when they decided to go with the story.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they had a ton of answers, and they were probably similar to the other papers (like the LA Times) that also had the same story and were about the break it:

1. The use of SWIFT data wasn't exactly a state secret, as the SWIFT officials whose cooperation was needed obviously knew about it.

2. It's extremely unlikely that any terrorist presumed that records of financial transactions were untraceable.

3. There is no evidence that any anti-terror operation was or would be compromised.

4. Given the White House's record of invading privacy without legal process, the potential for this information to be misused and the President's position of being above and beyond the law during "wartime," the issue was obviously one of public import.

5. There is no evidence that the White House could not have obtained the same or equally good information through formal legal processes, such as subpoenas under seal.

The only that's even interesting about this story was the White House's ability to coordinate a propaganda campaign suggesting without a shard of evidence that the NY Times compromised state security. They saw the story coming -- and not just from the Times -- and alerted Fox, the blogs and all their sympathetic friends eager to help Bush out of another embarrassment by issuing frivolous allegations of "treason" (as O'Reilly called it, without any facts, the day it broke). It's just more proof that Bush's acolytes will believe anything, no matter how absurd, emanating from the White House PR machine.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The NY Times doesn't think the government should keep any secrets. I wonder if the NY Times thinks this rule applies to them? If they don't want any secrets then they should publish a list of their sources on the front page of tomorrow's issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems you don't understand the value of a free press.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. You can contemplate that value while reading a NYT issue with the next (and possibly preventible with some restraint by the press) terrorist attack that kills someone you care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point of my sentence. The point was that the NYT, or any newspaper, should not have to reveal their sources. Equating newspaper sources with government secrets is illogical. A free press is one of the cornerstones of our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Fascists don't like freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because fascists don't like freedom, we shouldn't either?

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The NY Times doesn't think the government should keep any secrets. I wonder if the NY Times thinks this rule applies to them? If they don't want any secrets then they should publish a list of their sources on the front page of tomorrow's issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems you don't understand the value of a free press.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. You can contemplate that value while reading a NYT issue with the next (and possibly preventible with some restraint by the press) terrorist attack that kills someone you care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point of my sentence. The point was that the NYT, or any newspaper, should not have to reveal their sources. Equating newspaper sources with government secrets is illogical. A free press is one of the cornerstones of our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Fascists don't like freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because fascists don't like freedom, we shouldn't either?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I was suggesting that the poster's appeal to something being a cornerstone of freedom was likely pointless given the outlook of some of the posters here.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and how exactly have you been harmed by the patriot act?

[/ QUOTE ]

So I have to be harmed to have my freedoms reduced?

All the government has to do is label you a terrorist and you have no rights. Do they have any criteria they have to meet to label you a terrorist? No. So they can do it to anybody. They can detain you forever if they feel like it without ever having to charge you with a crime where you'll most likely be tortured and sodomized daily.

Am I supposed to trust the government's discretion on this? Well I don't. I'm not supposed to, thats why we have these rights in the first place.

P.S. I just threw in the torture and sodomy part for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every conservative has the exact same response about the patriot act. (how has it harmed you) As if the loss of rights and freedoms have to be immediate.

Its amazing how unified they are not only in their beliefs, but in their fundamental understanding of basic concepts.

If you lost your right to a fair trial... but you weren't currently being tried... they would argue you've lost nothing.

Sad, really.

[Copernicus]

And I'm sure you look forward to sitting around the campfire, reading your "cornerstone of freedom" fishwrap, and singing Kumbaya.

Just be sure your lookout alerts you when one of the MCP is coming, or the fishwrap might be better used for your decapitated head.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm sure you look forward to sitting around the campfire, reading your "cornerstone of freedom" fishwrap, and singing Kumbaya.

Just be sure your lookout alerts you when one of the MCP is coming, or the fishwrap might be better used for your decapitated head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure; security threats justify any kind of oppression. I read it in the characteristics of fascism thread.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The people entrusted to protect the country might use technology that has been proven tostop terrorists to monitor my phone calls to my girlfriend and banking transactions, so lets dismantle the whole thing.

asinine life you lead. try reading about EV in life instead of poker for a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider Constitutionally protected freedoms to be +EV in life. I consider it -EV to give those up to the government after our founding fathers expressly forbade it.

If you disagree, that's cool. We place different values on freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

it could be a lot simpler than that - they all could be a lot more ignorant on history then the rest of us.

Anyone can tell you the danger from a repressive totaliarian govt. is much worse then a few muslims or idiots on the Web - anyone with any common sense can tell you that. That's why we like our safeguards and the press keeping an eye on things.

remember - they think EVERYTHING they do is legal - we know that's [censored] - so does the SCOTUS - but if they can keep it secret, it doesn't matter if it's illegal - which is part of the reason the press is so important.

I just laugh and say ha ha - the truth is so anemic to these Republicans that to see it in print brings them to throes of anger and shouts of treason - their work cannot stand up to the light of truth and the flaws become immediately apparent when the light shines in their direction.

they don't like truth very much. Their father is the father of lies.

RB