Enough said? This is considered running a paper into the ground.....which is liberally OK.....
Posted on 12/27/2005 4:12:46 AM PST by NJRighty
Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror?
The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.
It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.
The most notorious example was the paper's disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has "secretly" engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails.
It's not secret anymore, of course — though the folks who reacted to the naming of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative aren't exactly shrieking for another grand jury investigation.
On the contrary: Democrats and their news-media allies — particularly on CNN and CBS — are openly suggesting that the president committed an impeachable offense and could (read: should) be removed from office.
In fact, the Times managed only to blow the lid off of what President Bush rightly calls "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists" — one that already has uncovered several terrorist plots.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
After what the NYTimes did, I'm surprised they still have any advertisers. Any company that continues to advertise in the NYTimes should be considered just as treasonous as the Times itself.
Are these people trying to kill me?
The Gray Lady is no lady, she is an old whore , her pimps are the Democrat party. She is selling out America for the terrorists just as the Democrats are doing.
"After what the NYTimes did, I'm surprised they still have any advertisers. Any company that continues to advertise in the NYTimes should be considered just as treasonous as the Times itself."
Get a list of advertisers and we boycott them. Easiest way.
Did any terrorists seriously entertain the thought that Bush was NOT doing any of the stuff that has been so hysterically spilled? Remember they come from countries that would slay you if you looked at a picture of Mohammed crosswise.
I guess the term "Loose lips sinks ships" doesn't resonate over there anymore.
Enough said? This is considered running a paper into the ground.....which is liberally OK.....
Yeah, but it's not personal; it's Bush's fault.
TOYS? TOYS? How about COMMITS Treason!
Why do we even QUOTE the NY Times here on FreeRepublic? The Old Gray Hag should be bird doo-doo paper non grata.
Don't worry. Next the NYTimes will demand a public subsidy!
good idea:and let's let the advertisers know we are boycotting them and why.
Thanks..I was about to post the chart..I*t's the FR rules....like every time a Maureen Dowd thread goes up, we get a pic of Caterine Zeta-Jones...or pics of Ann Coulter with hwr columns...howver, sadly, since she has stopped playing competitive tennis..we no longer get pics of Anna Kournikova..
Can someone post a list of advertisers? I would make calls and send emails to any advertiser in the NYTimes.
The Slimes just ran an ad on Fox.
Should say It has published legally protected classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.
****
The old established/liberal/socialist media is America's most ruthless, relentless, and destructive enemy.
It never ends....
At our local Giant they have a booth for the Washington Post. I give of feed back to him when he is there.
Does anyone other than me remember that back when Dan Rather and the NYT broke the TANG story, there was a rumor going around that they had another even more damaging story that they were going to spring on Bush at the most opportune moment? That story never appeared, but now we know what it was. It was this story about domestic eavesdropping that they withheld.
And you can bet that they did not withhold it because they wanted to help Bush. They withheld it because they were afraid that the story would backfire like the TANG story and help Bush.
|
|
Saddam doesn't need lawyers, just a subscription to the NYT. |
That's going to leave a mark.
I propose THIS be the new posting rules for the NYT!!!
NYT = COPPERHEADS!
Now there's a serious waste of their resources.......anyone listening to Fox wouldn't spend money on that rag.
The OGW is taunting the administration, begging for retaliation that will open the door for more treasonus vile. Destruction of the Administration and control of the country is the OGW agenda.
I will bet on W tho. He will turn the situation to his advantage. Never misundersetimate the man
Rename Times Square for something American..... Rudy Square is a suggestion
.....Are these people trying to kill me?....
Yes. The OGW has become our worst enemy
If the pres had any spine, he'd deport the people responsible at the Times.
Indirectly, Sarge, YES.
The NYT has allowed itself to become consumed with liberal rage that clouds its judgement.
Like a rabid dog, the NYT is dangerous. But also like a rabid dog, it is sad to see such potential that needs to be destroyed.
We cannot do more harm than they are doing to themselves. Just keep pointing out the insanity and irrationality of the NYT whenever you can.
.....The Slimes just ran an ad on Fox......
Didn't ya love all the pseudo intellects giving testimony about the quality of the paper?
I know I did. </sarcasm>
Heavy story...
Thanks. I'm off to work now, but will send emails later today.
Did you catch the slightly up-tilted head with the partially closed eyelids, looking down their nose at you? *snicker*
Phone: 1-VONAGE-HELP (1-866-243-4357)
Vonage doesn't have email links to Consumer Relations that I could find....call this number and they might be able to give you an email address.
I'd sure like to see a prominent list of advertisers. I refuse to read it, so I don't have a clue. However, I'd surely send an email to those advertisers letting them know that as a consumer, I have choices.
Yea it makes them feel like they are in the know. That guy is a real dork.
I'd agree with that. And also US Newz, as most Americans would approve that Muslim weapons armories (aka "mosques") be monitored for nukes and other dangerous materials, IMO.
Is there any wonder their reaction to this is a bit over the top?
If you voted for Bush in the last election--yes.
As Ambrose Bierce would say, "No one is completely useless in that he may serve as a poor example."
But someone hit it on the head when he or she said any self-respecting advertiser should pulls all its ads.
I think we need something more organized than FR to run boycotts.
However, I would dump Vonage if a suitable boycott could be run. Switching VoIP carriers is a 15-minute no-brainer.
I guess it's too much to hope that Fox gouged them royally for it.
You're right, however, grassroots movements start with a few FRpeople...haven't seen anyone else try to organize yet.
I think the chart at the top of this thread would give advertisers a reason to bail off a sinking ship and there are hundreds of documented Slimes antics on:
http://www.timeswatch.org/
Advertisers are business people, if they see poor financial performance by their advertising media, they'll look elsewhere. http://www.timeswatch.org/ will also document why the NYT may be a losing proposition for precious advertising dollars.
Call it a boycott if you will, I would call it a preference not to enrich companies that are doing business with the NYT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
