NYT Screws Pooch Again

0 views
Skip to first unread message

no surrender

unread,
Aug 25, 2007, 9:29:41 AM8/25/07
to
SUGGESTED READING FOR CONSERVATIVES, REQUIRED FOR WEE, TWEE, AND FEY LIBS

FROM SPECIAL REPORT

The New York Times has had to set the record straight after this statement
about former CIA chief George Tenet in a Thursday editorial: "When George W.
Bush won the White House, Mister Tenet seems to have shifted his priorities.
The CIA chief suddenly seemed consumed with hanging onto his job (through
such innovative anti-terrorism measures as naming the CIA's Langley,
Virginia, headquarters for Mister Bush's father)."

But in fact the building was renamed in 1999 while Bill Clinton was
president.
******
Ah yes, the NY Times, loony left loser libs and dem damned dim Dems Toilet
Paper of Record, heh, heh, heh.

Dennis

MACK DADDY

unread,
Aug 25, 2007, 2:58:30 PM8/25/07
to

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The New York Times is not liberal, Surrenderer! You only think that
because you are brainwashed by Faux News Net.

Surrenderboy screws Calloused Vaginous again!

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Aug 25, 2007, 3:40:59 PM8/25/07
to
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:58:30 -0700, MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com>
wrote:

[...]

>The New York Times is not liberal

[...]

Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
you consider "liberal."

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Crescentius Vespasianus

unread,
Aug 25, 2007, 5:24:42 AM8/25/07
to

>
> Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
> you consider "liberal."
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
---------------
It would be easier to list the one's who
weren't liberal. BTW, Bush wouldn't be
on the "not Liberal" list either.

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Aug 25, 2007, 11:42:15 PM8/25/07
to
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:24:42 -0700, Crescentius Vespasianus
<jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>>
>> Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
>> you consider "liberal."
>>
>> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>---------------
>It would be easier to list the one's who
>weren't liberal.

Of course it's easier to duck a question than to answer it. But if MD
wants us to believe the NYT is not "liberal," he owes us an example of
who he means by "liberal."

--Hugo S. Cunningham

eldorado

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 8:42:16 AM8/27/07
to

I certainly don't see Judith Miller as being liberal. If the NYT is as
liberal as you rightwingers seem to think please explain why they gave her
continual front page coverage that hyped the war prior to invasion.

--
Randomly generated signature
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

no surrender

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 10:05:35 AM8/27/07
to

"eldorado" <eldo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:2007082707...@eris.io.com...

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:58:30 -0700, MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> The New York Times is not liberal
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
> > you consider "liberal."
> >
> > --Hugo S. Cunningham
> >
>
> I certainly don't see Judith Miller as being liberal. If the NYT is as
> liberal as you rightwingers seem to think please explain why they gave her
> continual front page coverage that hyped the war prior to invasion.
******
Why, FeS2, just can't stay away, eh! Enjoy those whuppins' I regularly
administered, heh? You and Dung Beetle (WAKWHI)...[chuckle].

Dennis

Dennis

MACK DADDY

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 3:21:12 AM8/28/07
to
On Aug 27, 7:05 am, "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
> "eldorado" <eldor...@io.com> wrote in message

>
> news:2007082707...@eris.io.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:58:30 -0700, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com>

> > > wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > >> The New York Times is not liberal
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
> > > you consider "liberal."
>
> > > --Hugo S. Cunningham
>
> > I certainly don't see Judith Miller as being liberal. If the NYT is as
> > liberal as you rightwingers seem to think please explain why they gave her
> > continual front page coverage that hyped the war prior to invasion.
>
> ******
> Why, FeS2, just can't stay away, eh! Enjoy those whuppins' I regularly
> administered, heh? You and Dung Beetle (WAKWHI)...[chuckle].
>
> Dennis
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> > --
> > Randomly generated signature
> > I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Always Surrender, you should become a comedian, eh, cause like you get
funnier all the time!

eldorado

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 11:28:09 AM8/28/07
to

He also shows how much of an idiot he is, as I have repeatedly stated he
is in my killfile. I cannot read (unless someone responds, as in this
case) his boring personal attacks.

--
Randomly generated signature
I live in my own little world, but it's ok, they know me here.

no surrender

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 11:41:37 AM8/28/07
to

"eldorado" <eldo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:2007082810...@eris.io.com...
*****
I do enjoy watching you two on your circle jerks...holding each other's tiny
penises.

Dennis
>
> --
> Randomly generated signature

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 12:04:21 PM8/28/07
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:42:16 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:58:30 -0700, MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The New York Times is not liberal
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
>> you consider "liberal."
>>
>> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>>
>
>I certainly don't see Judith Miller as being liberal.
> If the NYT is as
>liberal as you rightwingers seem to think please explain why they gave her
>continual front page coverage that hyped the war prior to invasion.

The NYT forced Judith Miller to resign, and went through a long public
"mea culpa" to cleanse themselves of her taint.
In contrast, nobody was fired, and there was no public apology, for
the NYT's credulity almost up to the very end toward Michael Nifong's
Duke Lacrosse hoax.

Incidentally, as a libertarian conservative who has publicly called
for G. W. Bush's resignation since April 2004, I do not share much of
NS's politics. But I get irritated by Usenet debaters who evade a
simple request to clarify a key term in their argument. That
especially applies to the word "liberal," which has radically
different meanings when uttered by (1) Rush Limbaugh, (2) Hugo Chavez,
(3) Pope Benedict XVI, (4) the editorial board of Britain's
<i>Economist</i>, or (5) Al Franken.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Bert Hyman

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 12:08:43 PM8/28/07
to
checkw...@cyberussr.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
news:3gg8d39ujh2nkmpuq...@4ax.com:

> Incidentally, as a libertarian conservative

A libertarian conservative?

What the heck is that?

You can be one or the other, but I can't imagine the combination.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com

eldorado

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 4:51:21 PM8/28/07
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:42:16 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:58:30 -0700, MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> The New York Times is not liberal
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
>>> you consider "liberal."
>>>
>>> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>>>
>>
>> I certainly don't see Judith Miller as being liberal.
>> If the NYT is as
>> liberal as you rightwingers seem to think please explain why they gave her
>> continual front page coverage that hyped the war prior to invasion.
>
> The NYT forced Judith Miller to resign, and went through a long public
> "mea culpa" to cleanse themselves of her taint.

Nice piece of revisionist history. She worked for the NYT for 28 years
before she resigned. She stated that she resigned as..well her own
words set the record straight. "But mainly I have
chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news,
something a New York Times reporter never wants to be.

"Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury
over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war." --

As for your second claim let's hear it from the publisher of the NYT
Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

"We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend
an important journalistic principle, I respect her decision
to retire from the Times and wish her well."


-- Randomly generated signature
It's easier to fight for one's principals than to live up to them.

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 6:49:03 PM8/28/07
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:51:21 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:42:16 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:58:30 -0700, MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The New York Times is not liberal
>>>>

>>>> Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
>>>> you consider "liberal."

>>> I certainly don't see Judith Miller as being liberal.


>>> If the NYT is as
>>> liberal as you rightwingers seem to think please explain why they gave her
>>> continual front page coverage that hyped the war prior to invasion.
>>
>> The NYT forced Judith Miller to resign, and went through a long public
>> "mea culpa" to cleanse themselves of her taint.
>
>Nice piece of revisionist history. She worked for the NYT for 28 years
>before she resigned.

Most of those years were uncontroversial. So?

> She stated that she resigned as..well her own
>words set the record straight. "But mainly I have
>chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news,
>something a New York Times reporter never wants to be.
>
>"Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury
>over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war." --

Specifically, she had become a "lightning rod" for relentless attacks
both on the the pages of the NYT and behind the scenes by both NYT
staffers and NYT management.
See, for example
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16048


>As for your second claim let's hear it from the publisher of the NYT
>Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
>
>"We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend
>an important journalistic principle, I respect her decision
>to retire from the Times and wish her well."

Business law 101: If your ex-employee isn't attacking you publicly,
don't attack her publicly. You avoid a lot of lawsuits that way.

Why dispute the obvious?

But I notice you did not try to dispute my statement about the NYT's
"mea culpa" on Judith Martin, in contrast to their silence on Duke
Lacrosse.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 7:18:43 PM8/28/07
to
On 28 Aug 2007 16:08:43 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>checkw...@cyberussr.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
>news:3gg8d39ujh2nkmpuq...@4ax.com:
>
>> Incidentally, as a libertarian conservative
>
>A libertarian conservative?
>
>What the heck is that?
>
>You can be one or the other, but I can't imagine the combination.

"Libertarian conservative" is a political term of art applying only
in the USA, with its distinctive usage of "conservative" and
"libertarian" (often called "liberal" abroad).

LCs were reasonably common in the Reagan years, when Barry Goldwater
wished to keep the government "off your back, out of your pocket, and
out of your bedroom." They are not to be found in today's G.W. Bush
administration, which panders to the Religious Right.

LCs share the US "conservative" hard line on foreign policy and crime
control. The "watchman state" should do what states alone have the
capability to do (eg maintain a monopoly on force), but otherwise
leave the people alone as much as possible.

Like libertarians, LCs oppose squandering scarce public safety
resources on crusades against pornography and drugs, where prohibition
serves only to empower gangsters and terrorists.

Like libertarians, LCs favor keeping taxes and spending down, though
they do not have the same utopian hope to abolish the IRS.

Indeed, my own claim of the LC label was mainly to save space. Some
of my long-term positions, eg in favor of universal health insurance,
are utilitarian (aka "good-government") centrist.

The libertarian Right can go too far romanticizing the 1964 Goldwater
campaign. Today's libertarians wince, for example, at the homophobia
of today's Republican "conservatives.' A conservative writer for
"National Review," however, recently pointed out that rabid homophobia
(though he didn't describe it that way) was routinely embraced by 1964
"conservatives." Also, the five Deep South states who voted for
Goldwater in 1964 were likely not motivated by libertarianism.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Bert Hyman

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 8:13:48 PM8/28/07
to
In news:lt69d3tebl69gqp0a...@4ax.com Hugo S. Cunningham
<checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:

> LCs share the US "conservative" hard line on foreign policy and crime
> control.

Then they're not libertarian, so why pretend?

MACK DADDY

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 10:12:29 PM8/28/07
to

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You see that, everyone? You see what a pervert Surrenderboy is? He
looks at my penis eh! heh heh heh heh huh huh huh huh

Curly Surmudgeon

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 10:22:35 PM8/28/07
to
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:29:41 -0400, no surrender wrote:

You guys don't know the meaning of humility do you?

Get caught with your collective reproductive organ dangling in the wind
and there is no shame, no acknowledgement of the depth of your glorious
leaders failures, just more attack ads.

This is why you're so detested.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 11:42:12 PM8/28/07
to
On 29 Aug 2007 00:13:48 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:lt69d3tebl69gqp0a...@4ax.com Hugo S. Cunningham
><checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
>
>> LCs share the US "conservative" hard line on foreign policy and crime
>> control.
>
>Then they're not libertarian, so why pretend?

They share libertarian opposition to "social conservatism," so the
compound description "libertarian conservative" (ie half of each) is
more accurate than either of its components.

Similarly, an Islamo-fascist is not the same as a fascist. They share
totalitarian methods and a self-confident ideological rejection of
Western democracy. Islamo-fascists, however, reject the ethnic and
racial roots of European fascism, drawing inspiration instead from a
fundamentalist religion. Again, the compound is distinct and more
informative than its individual components.
Not being Islamist, Saddam Hussein was no Islamo-fascist. Indeed,
although cruel and repressive, he did not carry enough ideological
weight to qualify as fascist either.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

no surrender

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 1:39:42 PM8/29/07
to

"Hugo S. Cunningham" <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote in message
news:2pp9d3da551bguroh...@4ax.com...
*****
Hugo, I like your thoughts on LC's. Good stuff.

Dennis
>
>
>


Bert Hyman

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 1:42:30 PM8/29/07
to
checkw...@cyberussr.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
news:2pp9d3da551bguroh...@4ax.com:

> On 29 Aug 2007 00:13:48 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:lt69d3tebl69gqp0a...@4ax.com Hugo S.
>>Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> LCs share the US "conservative" hard line on foreign policy and
>>> crime control.
>>
>>Then they're not libertarian, so why pretend?
>
> They share libertarian opposition to "social conservatism," so the
> compound description "libertarian conservative" (ie half of each)
> is more accurate than either of its components.
>
> Similarly, an Islamo-fascist is not the same as a fascist.

However, they are Islamist, and they are fascist.

Since you're not libertarian, the use of the compound construction is
bogus.

eldorado

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 9:56:31 AM8/29/07
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:51:21 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:42:16 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:58:30 -0700, MACK DADDY <pepsiv...@msn.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The New York Times is not liberal
>>>>>
>>>>> Please list some politicians, journalists, and/or publications that
>>>>> you consider "liberal."
>
>>>> I certainly don't see Judith Miller as being liberal.
>>>> If the NYT is as
>>>> liberal as you rightwingers seem to think please explain why they gave her
>>>> continual front page coverage that hyped the war prior to invasion.
>>>
>>> The NYT forced Judith Miller to resign, and went through a long public
>>> "mea culpa" to cleanse themselves of her taint.
>>
>> Nice piece of revisionist history. She worked for the NYT for 28 years
>> before she resigned.
>
> Most of those years were uncontroversial. So?

So you are saying that this vetran's reporter's style of reporting
suddenly changed with the war? Why is that? Have you looked at her
previous writings? She worked for the NYT as she co-wrote "Sadam Hussein
and the Crisis in the Gulf" Have you had a chance to read this book? You
will see her views had not suddenly changed.

She also worked in 1986 with
Admiral Pointdexter writing numerous articles. As Bob Woodward revealed
in the Washington post Miller planted Poindexter's propaganda in her own
writings: claiming that el-Khadaffi was being betrayed from within his own
country, that he had sunk into depression, and that he had turned to
drugs. Miller went on to claim Khadaffi had tried to have sex with her,
but lost interest when she claimed Jewish heritage.


>
>> She stated that she resigned as..well her own
>> words set the record straight. "But mainly I have
>> chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news,
>> something a New York Times reporter never wants to be.
>>
>> "Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury
>> over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war." --
>
> Specifically, she had become a "lightning rod" for relentless attacks
> both on the the pages of the NYT and behind the scenes by both NYT
> staffers and NYT management.
> See, for example
> http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16048
>

As well as the nightly news, the washington post etc. Wonder why you and
your article failed to mention this fact?

>
>> As for your second claim let's hear it from the publisher of the NYT
>> Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
>>
>> "We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend
>> an important journalistic principle, I respect her decision
>> to retire from the Times and wish her well."
>
> Business law 101: If your ex-employee isn't attacking you publicly,
> don't attack her publicly. You avoid a lot of lawsuits that way.
>
> Why dispute the obvious?
>

So you admit, contrary to your previous claim that the NYT was not
attacking Judith Miller. You also claim to know the inside reason...being
your business law rule...Interesting, how did you come to this conclusion?
Did it just come out of thin air?


> But I notice you did not try to dispute my statement about the
NYT's > "mea culpa" on Judith Martin, in contrast to their silence on Duke
> Lacrosse.
>

The discussion is on Judith Miller and the large amount of right wing
writings she published for the NYT. It is not on the Lacross team. The
articles on the Lacross team did not speak one way or the other on the
NYT's political leanings. Having Judith Miller write articles rah-rahing
the war on the front page did.

> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>

--
Randomly generated signature
Error 407 - No creative sig found

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 7:31:45 PM8/29/07
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:56:31 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

[...]

> > But I notice you did not try to dispute my statement about the
>NYT's > "mea culpa" on Judith Martin, in contrast to their silence on Duke
>> Lacrosse.
>>
>
>The discussion is on Judith Miller and the large amount of right wing
>writings she published for the NYT. It is not on the Lacross team.

The discussion involving me is on whether the NYT is "liberal." Those
who deny it still owe me the courtesy of defining "liberal," with
clear examples of current politicians and/or journalists.

> The
>articles on the Lacross team did not speak one way or the other on the
>NYT's political leanings. Having Judith Miller write articles rah-rahing
>the war on the front page did.

Judith Miller and Michael Nifong's claque offer two different
perspectives on the same original question -- is the NYT "liberal"?

(I may address the rest of your post later, though we seem to be
arguing in circles.)

--Hugo S. Cunningham

eldorado

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 8:38:17 AM8/30/07
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:56:31 -0500, eldorado <eldo...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > But I notice you did not try to dispute my statement about the
>> NYT's > "mea culpa" on Judith Martin, in contrast to their silence on Duke
>>> Lacrosse.
>>>
>>
>> The discussion is on Judith Miller and the large amount of right wing
>> writings she published for the NYT. It is not on the Lacross team.
>
> The discussion involving me is on whether the NYT is "liberal." Those
> who deny it still owe me the courtesy of defining "liberal," with
> clear examples of current politicians and/or journalists.

I am stating the NYT is conservative. I gave you an example of a
journalist that was employed by the NYT for over 28 years that is
conservative and whose writing in the NYT were also conservative, I gave
you examples of writings that spanned from 1995 until current..
Would you also like me to define conservative by giving you current
politicians that are conservative?


>
>> The
>> articles on the Lacross team did not speak one way or the other on the
>> NYT's political leanings. Having Judith Miller write articles rah-rahing
>> the war on the front page did.
>
> Judith Miller and Michael Nifong's claque offer two different
> perspectives on the same original question -- is the NYT "liberal"?

One who rah-rah'ed the country to war vs an ex-prosecutor (who is not
employed by the NYT) is certainly not in the same league. While what
happened in Durham County was terrible. It is unbelievable for you
to claim it on even footing as a series of articles that has led to the
tragic death of thousands of our young men and women. For shame.


>
> (I may address the rest of your post later, though we seem to be
> arguing in circles.)
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>

--
Randomly generated signature
A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 5:17:32 PM9/4/07
to

On 29 Aug 2007 17:42:30 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>checkw...@cyberussr.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
>news:2pp9d3da551bguroh...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 29 Aug 2007 00:13:48 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:lt69d3tebl69gqp0a...@4ax.com Hugo S.
>>>Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> LCs share the US "conservative" hard line on foreign policy and
>>>> crime control.
>>>
>>>Then they're not libertarian, so why pretend?
>>
>> They share libertarian opposition to "social conservatism," so the
>> compound description "libertarian conservative" (ie half of each)
>> is more accurate than either of its components.
>>
>> Similarly, an Islamo-fascist is not the same as a fascist.
>
>However, they are Islamist, and they are fascist.

Lengthy Usenet threads dispute the second point intensely. Most of
the initiators share your disdain for "conservatives," whether social
or libertarian.

>Since you're not libertarian, the use of the compound construction is
>bogus.

Your reasoning seems to be:

If you are not Black, you cannot write about issues involving Blacks.
If you are not Chinese, you cannot write about China.
If you are not a Mayflower descendant, you cannot write about early
New England.

--Hugo S. Cunningham


Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 5:42:52 PM9/4/07
to

In the early 1930s, the NYT employed Walter Duranty,
Collectivization-holocaust denier and Stalinist apologist. Did that
make the 1930s NYT a Stalinist paper?

In the 1950s the NYT simultaneously employed Herbert Matthews,
apologist for Fidel Castro, and Allen Drury, whose later political
novels would have a notable right-wing slant.

Was the 1950s NYT simultaneously Castroite and right-wing in the late
1950s?

Or is it more plausible to argue they employed reporters of varying
political opinions who could provide interesting stories?

>>> She stated that she resigned as..well her own
>>> words set the record straight. "But mainly I have
>>> chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news,
>>> something a New York Times reporter never wants to be.
>>>
>>> "Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury
>>> over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war." --
>>
>> Specifically, she had become a "lightning rod" for relentless attacks
>> both on the the pages of the NYT and behind the scenes by both NYT
>> staffers and NYT management.
>> See, for example
>> http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16048
>>
>As well as the nightly news, the washington post etc. Wonder why you and
>your article failed to mention this fact?

So what? Is the "Washington Post" conservative in your books too?
Will you at last have the honesty to list some politicians and
periodicals you consider "liberal"? (fourth request and still
counting)

The main point is that Miller's own workplace were busy creating a
hostile work environment, maybe justified or maybe not, but denying it
led to her resignation is silly.

>>> As for your second claim let's hear it from the publisher of the NYT
>>> Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
>>>
>>> "We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend
>>> an important journalistic principle, I respect her decision
>>> to retire from the Times and wish her well."
>>
>> Business law 101: If your ex-employee isn't attacking you publicly,
>> don't attack her publicly. You avoid a lot of lawsuits that way.
>>
>> Why dispute the obvious?
>>
>
>So you admit, contrary to your previous claim that the NYT was not
>attacking Judith Miller.

Not in the parting statements, carefully parsed by lawyers on both
sides. The previous weeks leading up to her resignation were another
story entirely, as the link I gave you explained.
>>http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16048

> You also claim to know the inside reason...being
>your business law rule...Interesting, how did you come to this conclusion?
>Did it just come out of thin air?

Out of years of observation of corporate resignations when no lawsuit
is intended. (No, I am not a lawyer, just a follower of current
events.)

Again, read the link I gave you to note the contrast between the civil
tone of the resignation letter and reply, and the weeks that led up to
it.

[rest of message answered earlier]

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Bert Hyman

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 7:06:15 PM9/4/07
to
In news:56ird3h1l8tn6uq3j...@4ax.com Hugo S. Cunningham

<checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2007 17:42:30 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>However, they are Islamist, and they are fascist.
>
> Lengthy Usenet threads dispute the second point intensely. Most of
> the initiators share your disdain for "conservatives," whether social
> or libertarian.

Perhaps the use of the term "fascist" as a convenient catch-all isn't
useful.

How's this: they advocate totalitarian rule in the name of their
religion.

Better?

Bert Hyman

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 7:07:35 PM9/4/07
to
In news:56ird3h1l8tn6uq3j...@4ax.com Hugo S. Cunningham
<checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:

You're pretty dense.

My reasoning is exactly this:

None of your positions are remotely related to any flavor of anything
libertarian, so your use of the term "libertarian" in labeling yourself
is dishonest.

Get it now?

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 11:18:09 PM9/4/07
to
On 04 Sep 2007 23:07:35 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>> On 29 Aug 2007 17:42:30 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>>>Since you're not libertarian, the use of the compound construction

>>>["libertarian-conservative"]


>>>is bogus.
>>
>> Your reasoning seems to be:
>>
>> If you are not Black, you cannot write about issues involving Blacks.
>> If you are not Chinese, you cannot write about China.
>> If you are not a Mayflower descendant, you cannot write about early
>> New England.
>
>You're pretty dense.
>
>My reasoning is exactly this:
>
>None of your positions are remotely related to any flavor of anything
>libertarian, so your use of the term "libertarian" in labeling yourself
>is dishonest.
>
>Get it now?

Since you answered it, you must have read this post of mine on 28
August

From: Hugo S. Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NYT Screws Pooch Again
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:18:43 -0400
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <lt69d3tebl69gqp0a...@4ax.com>

If you go back, you will find your current points answered, eg

Are these two paragraphs "[not] remotely related to any flavor of
anything libertarian"? --

>>>>>>>Hugo S. Cunningham <checkw...@cyberussr.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>Like libertarians, LCs oppose squandering scarce public safety
>>>>>>>>resources on crusades against pornography and drugs, where prohibition
>>>>>>>>serves only to empower gangsters and terrorists.
>
>>>>>>>>Like libertarians, LCs favor keeping taxes and spending down, though
>>>>>>>>they do not have the same utopian hope to abolish the IRS.

As for me not being a true libertarian conservative, I admitted it
several rounds back, in the same post:

>>>>>>>>Indeed, my own claim of the LC label was mainly to save space. Some
>>>>>>>>of my long-term positions, eg in favor of universal health insurance,
>>>>>>>>are utilitarian (aka "good-government") centrist.

Does that, as per my last message, disqualify me from discussing the
phenomenon?

Please name some politicians and/or periodicals that you consider most
representatively "libertarian."

--Hugo S. Cunningham


Bert Hyman

unread,
Sep 5, 2007, 8:53:09 AM9/5/07
to
checkw...@cyberussr.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
news:o37sd3hkhtcavp2ed...@4ax.com:

> Does that, as per my last message, disqualify me from discussing
> the phenomenon?

You're free to discuss anything you like, of course.

But unless you enjoy revealing yourself as less than truthful, you'll
refrain from calling yourself libertarian.

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Sep 5, 2007, 12:41:00 PM9/5/07
to
On 05 Sep 2007 12:53:09 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>checkw...@cyberussr.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
>news:o37sd3hkhtcavp2ed...@4ax.com:
>
>> Does that, as per my last message, disqualify me from discussing
>> the phenomenon?
>
>You're free to discuss anything you like, of course.
>
>But unless you enjoy revealing yourself as less than truthful, you'll
>refrain from calling yourself libertarian.

(Continued evasion of question, who you *do* consider a libertarian,
noted)

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Bert Hyman

unread,
Sep 5, 2007, 1:01:01 PM9/5/07
to
checkw...@cyberussr.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
news:1vmtd3pqi38cb5tps...@4ax.com:

> (Continued evasion of question, who you *do* consider a
> libertarian, noted)

Take a hike, bozo.

And, good luck.

Hugo S. Cunningham

unread,
Sep 6, 2007, 1:33:50 PM9/6/07
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:22:35 -0300, Curly Surmudgeon
<cu...@offshore.com> wrote:

[all deleted]

In the context of this newsgroup, the word "sycophant" made me chuckle
a bit, reminding me of a series "Mad Magazine" ran in the early 1960s
called "Mad beasties" or something like that. A pun off a word would
generate a cartoon creature having nothing to do with the word's
actual meaning, eg

"vanilla" yields a cartoon of a gorilla driving a van.

Given that an elephant is the symbol of the USA "Republican Party,"
perhaps "sycophant" could be re-written "psycho-phant" and interpreted
as a pychopathic (Republican) elephant.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages