NYT's: Hemmoraging money, and trying to take the country down with them.

Again, the lefties have to be so proud. What say you JFO, Paul H., Jp2? ww

I'm happy to answer that ww.

First, JT's visceral hatred of the NY Times reduces his credibility in writing about it to zero. This is evidenced in this post by his omission (obviously deliberate) of their reasoning for using the man's name.

Second, here is their reasoning:

"The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name."

Agree with it or not but treason? That's far out even for extreme right wingers such as you and JT.

P.S. Just as a matter of consistency - did you and JT call the outing of Valerir Plame treason? Or is that just a label for non-right wing extremists?

To summarize JFO's comment.

___________________________

That's what nothing looks like if nothing could be viewed. He mimics the fish wraps excuse but, like the times, utterly fails to explain how their (and now JFO's) reasoning mitigates the possibility of this operative seeing harm to him or his family in the future.

I think the question, as posed by JT, what greater good does it serve was the question raised in countries such as Nazi Germany, the USSR and China. In this country we have a Constitution which does not require that question when it comes to the press.

Nothing here that isn't consistent with the Times agenda-and nothing that isn't consistent with their aopolgists.

And an apology needs to be made to all upstanding fishwrap.

I think the question, as posed by JT, what greater good does it serve was the question raised in countries such as Nazi Germany, the USSR and China. In this country we have a Constitution which does not require that question when it comes to the press

Why not just publish the name and addresses of all the military members that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just for a little kicker add the names of their spouses and children and where they work and where their kids go to school.

What is the difference here of a CIA interrogator and those in uniform? What greater good would it serve to publish those names?

First, JT's visceral hatred of the NY Times reduces his credibility in writing about it to zero. This is evidenced in this post by his omission (obviously deliberate) of their reasoning for using the man's name

JT's article links directly to the words you are referring to.

The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name

Oh I get it. If someone decides to pose in a magazine, let's say hypothetically it was a magazine like "Vanity Fair", then that person set the precedence for the Time's denying requests to keep names out of the paper even at the CIA's requests.

They sure wouldn't want that person getting the "scoop" first before the NYT's.

Brilliant thinking........

Just as a matter of consistency - did you and JT call the outing of Valerir Plame treason? Or is that just a label for non-right wing extremists

What was treasonous was an employee using her husband that already had a preconceived opinion on Iraq to go to Niger to gather intel for a request from the Vice President.

After traveling to Niger the partisan husband of the partisan employee went to the press rather than the Vice President in an attempted smear. Instead of being briefed back on his findings the Vice President had to read the requested information in the paper. And I say smear because we already know Iraq did try to attempt to send a delegation to buy yellow cake. A fact presented by the 9-11 Commission.

It sort of reminds me of how the left carries disgruntled military members on their shoulders and chastises those that are dedicated to the mission at hand even though the military is a non-partisan job.

Just as a matter of consistency - did you and JT call the outing of Valerir Plame treason?

Yes, I think Richard Armitage should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Do you?

One last thought before I hit the grindstone:

When the NYTs says this

"The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name"

I assume that means we will never again see an "anonymous source" giving credence to a NYT's article.

Because, you know, consistency and all.

JT's visceral hatred of the NY Times reduces his credibility in writing about it to zero.

Ah yes. The ad hominem attack, the common currency of liberalus irrationalus. Why is it so frequently used by liberals? They have nothing in the way of rational thought to spend in debates. They're children who have not received their logic allowance.

Just as a matter of consistency - did you and JT call the outing of Valerir Plame treason?

Well, let's see, for consistency's sake and all, you should be about ready to blow a gasket over the NYT's latest escapades then. But, I commend your exhibition of restraint that is nothing short of amazing.

Amazing indeed.

JFO,

Would you be okay with JayTea publishing your IP address for us if he posts something regarding you ? I mean that'd be consistent with your position here, right ?

I guess the Times didn't see the contradiction here when in their attempted justification noted regarding others:
who have themselves chosen to go public

Would the article have been lessened if the Times had used a fictitious name ? (i.e. Mr. 'Smith')

The enemedia. The only way through is to destroy them the capitalist way -- by starving them to death.

How's the bottom line lately, NYT?

Yes, I think Richard Armitage should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I second that.

How's the bottom line lately, NYT?

Apparently they're still actively searching for the bottom. The lines, on the other hand, have been found. But, they keep disappearing up the editors' noses.

JFO, the poster child of not being able to comprehend what he reads. ww

Hey J-ust F-rigging O-bnoxious how would you like it if JT revealed your home address so someone could come around and kick you un-American ass around the block a few times. But then people like you are not worth the time. All mouth and no gonads.

The only way through is to destroy them the capitalist way -- by starving them to death.

Yeah. I canceled my subscription to our local liberal rag last year. I brought it up in discussion with my wife's liberal Canadian aunt some time later. I was accused of censorship. Later on she went with my wife to the grocery. My wife would offer her things that she knew her aunt didn't like. When her aunt would refuse, she'd ask, "Why would you want to censor them?"

I married a dream.

Yes - Absolutely, without a shred of doubt, the NYT is guilty of treason.

I wish someone would grow some stones and prosecute these enemies of America.

Ah yes. The ad hominem attack, the common currency of liberalus irrationalus. Why is it so frequently used by liberals?

Good question. let\'s look at what an ad hominem is.

from dictionary.com

Ad Hominem

1. appealing to one\'s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one\'s intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent\'s character rather than answering his argument.

Hmm, well he did say Jay Tea was to the far right, but would a conservative ever use an ad hominem? Maybe there is even a better example of an ad hominem out there?

They have nothing in the way of rational thought to spend in debates. They\'re children who have not received their logic allowance.

Gosh, I think Clay might be a hypocrite. Next you are going to see someone on this board write about how it is ok to out cia agents if they are not supporting the Republican cause...oh wait that already happend.

Gosh, I think Clay might be a hypocrite.

My gawd, but you guys do need help.

If I said something like, "Those guys are wrong because they're children", then that could be construed as ad hominem. But, I didn't do that, did I? No, I didn't. I merely made the point that it's easy to tell when you've won a debate with a liberal. That's when they come out with the logical fallacies.

You do understand the difference, don't you? I know I expect much.