General Discussion

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)

66. My original post was that the TITLE Of the thread was misleading regarding the NYTimes "breaking"

Fri Aug 23, 2013, 04:24 PM

Aug 2013

with Obama. Because the NYTimes has been critical of Obama on numerous issues INCLUDING THE NSA.

In my original comment, I made one very simple comment. The OP'er mischaracterized the NYTimes in its support or non-support of Obama and YOU are the one who then brought up their endorsement.

So why did you bother to get involved with my original VALID comment/critique of the thread title?

Whatever, your previous reply indicates all you can do is weasel out of your previous posts rather than just say "sorry". Which isn't that hard, you know. I did it below on this very thread.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The New York Times has rather decisively broken with the Obama administration: [View all] friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 OP

good.... mike_c Aug 2013 #1

The editorial content of your thread title is unfounded. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #2

Sort of like most of your posts? Katashi_itto Aug 2013 #3

Meh. Let the 'cogintive infiltrators' post if they feel like it- we're on to them. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #8

+100 Katashi_itto Aug 2013 #14

Lol where is this "cognitive infiltrator" stuff coming from. dkf Aug 2013 #54

Here... winter is coming Aug 2013 #72

Thanks! Found it a bit earlier and I am appalled. dkf Aug 2013 #74

It's so Republican... "no, the problem isn't what we're doing, it's how winter is coming Aug 2013 #75

Rumsfeld diagnosed the "problem" at AbuGhraib was NOT the Torture, bvar22 Aug 2013 #101

First rule of Cognitive Infiltratrator Club: DirkGently Aug 2013 #106

How so? How do you think this will play in the White House? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #5

How do you think the NYTimes was previously joined to the Obama Administration? KittyWampus Aug 2013 #13

:) Isoldeblue Aug 2013 #16

The NYTimes "enthusiastically" endorsed O for President in 2012, THAT's HOW! Divernan Aug 2013 #27

Sorry, still no case made they would no longer endorse him. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #30

Issue was "how they were joined", NOT whether they'd endorse him again! Divernan Aug 2013 #38

I get the NYTimes daily. There have been MULTIPLE issues/editorials where they found fault w/Obama KittyWampus Aug 2013 #50

.. Little Star Aug 2013 #94

The only way to prove it is if he ran again, which he will not. CakeGrrl Aug 2013 #102

Ooh that's gotta Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 #31

It's hard to infiltrate when everyone can see you coming... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #45

I've put most of the cheerleaders on ignore; just left 1 or 2. Divernan Aug 2013 #46

So other DU'ers can see how wrong you are- one of the latest NYTimes Editorials criticizing Obama KittyWampus Aug 2013 #55

You're so upset, you're replying to the wrong post. Divernan Aug 2013 #64

My original post was that the TITLE Of the thread was misleading regarding the NYTimes "breaking" KittyWampus Aug 2013 #66

I replied to your post 13; we're allowed to reply to down thread posts, you know. Divernan Aug 2013 #80

Shame on you..... pocoloco Aug 2013 #99

Too bad I've totally debunked your OP's thread title. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #57

The NYTimes has found fault w/Obama & his Admin on numerous issues. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #52

This is about freedom of the press and prior restraint, not about the Obama administration or the JDPriestly Aug 2013 #65

Your post is a total non sequitor to my very short, simple post about the thread title. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #69

It's spelled "non sequitur". Divernan Aug 2013 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author Tunkamerica Aug 2013 #93

Not surprising. ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #4

care to document "this admistrations (sic) all out attack on journalists"? KittyWampus Aug 2013 #12

It's rare to see such devotion these days... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #15

Not rare enough mindwalker_i Aug 2013 #18

catawompus burnodo Aug 2013 #76

.... ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #20

You are right. Thanks for the correction! I apologize. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #63

. Fearless Aug 2013 #22

BTW. ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #26

Maybe, but you spelled " administration's " incorrectly George II Aug 2013 #51

Thanks professor! ForgoTheConsequence Aug 2013 #67

Zing! Javaman Aug 2013 #70

It was the subject of a post, no period necessary George II Aug 2013 #84

Maybe, but you don't need spaces inside quotes. nt Union Scribe Aug 2013 #88

"Obama�s War on Journalists" (Slate) deurbano Aug 2013 #48

Thanks, I was wrong! KittyWampus Aug 2013 #62

Good. More exposure is definitely better. LuvNewcastle Aug 2013 #6

lol....reported by the stoker the gaurdian...ok uponit7771 Aug 2013 #7

It won't be the first time. The NYT, the Guardian, La Monde, Der Spiegel joined with Wikleaks sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #56

Actually, it's arbitrage of press freedom laws, as it were. Benton D Struckcheon Aug 2013 #60

Yes, but what I am saying is, people were concerned, and articles have been written about how OUR sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #71

Interesting. If we are moving toward some kind of corporate world order... Eleanors38 Aug 2013 #68

Yes, I am actually pleasantly surprised the NYT has come forward to support the Guardian. They sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #73

Oh, because The Guardian is not a credible source. cui bono Aug 2013 #86

:facepalm: NealK Aug 2013 #91

Good, more sunlight on the roaches is valuable. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2013 #9

It's about time. The press has been asleep on the watch. Faryn Balyncd Aug 2013 #10

Maybe we will have nice things. Safetykitten Aug 2013 #11

UPDATE: Buzzfeed is confirming this, with more details: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #17

so what! heaven05 Aug 2013 #19

If they've seen the light, and are once again the NY Times that published... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #21

The Times always defends the interests of the establishment starroute Aug 2013 #23

+1. They cooperated with Bush for the same reason. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #25

No, actually it doesn't. It has a history of publishing editiorials across a pretty broad cali Aug 2013 #39

Editorials are a cheap way of scoring points starroute Aug 2013 #78

Astute observations here, IMO. +100. closeupready Aug 2013 #41

When Wikileaks released the diplomatic cables, I checked all the papers involved starroute Aug 2013 #79

The Guardian and Der Spiegel are my daily go-to news sources. Divernan Aug 2013 #82

K&R DeSwiss Aug 2013 #24

That is not news to me, OldEurope Aug 2013 #28

It's totally ironic how Palast, Greenwald, et. al went to the UK & The Guardian originally 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #29

Good! truebluegreen Aug 2013 #32

Like I often say 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #35

Right there with you. truebluegreen Aug 2013 #37

The Guardian is in collusion with the UK government. joshcryer Aug 2013 #92

Good? Google: CIA Operation Mockingbird New York Times AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #33

Indeed. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #61

I have maintained for some time that this isn't about the Obama Administration. totodeinhere Aug 2013 #34

The sad fact remains, that Obama IS POTUS NOW. 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #42

I hope they don't share the entire Snowden cache with the Times Oilwellian Aug 2013 #36

No they won't. Greenwald clarified "only to a limited class of Snowden documents, not all" Catherina Aug 2013 #95

This is wonderful, but kinda surprises me, I would have expected the Washington Post quinnox Aug 2013 #40

Historically one of the best media outlets, they compromised closeupready Aug 2013 #43

HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Aug 2013 #44

I wonder if the New York Times knows about this? George II Aug 2013 #47

Buzzfeed has more details friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #77

Almost 24 hours later, still no word from the NY Times? Or have I missed it? George II Aug 2013 #98

Amazing the transition LordGlenconner Aug 2013 #49

Does this mean Maureen Dowd is going to stop lionizing Obama? BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #53

Wouldn't that rather depend Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #58

The news media, the watchdog of our liberty, has a duty to bark loudly ... spin Aug 2013 #59

I do wish they'd bark as loudly when there's a Republican in charge. snot Aug 2013 #100

If they had we might not have got mired in Iraq. (n/t) spin Aug 2013 #105

You make it sound like they'd been dating for years Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #83

It will be interesting to see which NYT reporters are going to be completely villified now. cui bono Aug 2013 #85

An interesting development blackspade Aug 2013 #87

K&R! Phlem Aug 2013 #89

The NYT, not the sharpest tool in the box, that's for sure. blkmusclmachine Aug 2013 #90

LOL treestar Aug 2013 #96

Lockstep colbertforpresident Aug 2013 #97

I don't feel any great loyalty to either one, so if they don't play well together, whatevs. Pterodactyl Aug 2013 #103

I guess NYT will be up for sale soon. gulliver Aug 2013 #104