Posted on 07/01/2006 10:21:01 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
Here's a quick roundup of some hard-hitting editorial cartoona about the TreasonTimes. The first one actually appeared in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, which is pretty stunning.
I love it.
Ok, the cartoon about the D-Day Invasion raises a question from me. Of course I wasn't here then but was the Times Terrorist this bad back then as well?
I'm still waiting for charges to be filed.
If the Times was this bad in 1944, your post would have been in German.
Charges won't be filed. This will peeter out and the slimes will go on.
Today's editors are children of the 70s. They believe every war is Vietnam and every Republican president is Nixon. They think they stopped the Vietnam war and brought down Nixon, and are determined to do it again.
Here's a lovely cartoon by Pat Oliphant (another aging child of the 70s) that perfectly captures the attitude:
Today's editors are children of the 70s. They believe every war is Vietnam and every Republican president is Nixon. They think they stopped the Vietnam war and brought down Nixon, and are determined to do it again.
Here's a lovely cartoon by Pat Oliphant (another aging child of the 70s) that perfectly captures the attitude:
I don't think they helped their totalitarian heroes on D-Day, but they covered up and lied about Stalin's extermination of 5,000,000+ Ukrainians by famine.
And after charges are filed, chain the doors of the NYT shut. Ah hell, forget the charges, just board the place up.
probably.. and NYT will be punished where it hurts: stock
"Of course I wasn't here then but was the Times Terrorist this bad back then as well?"
No, the Times was run by patriotic Americans back then--REAL patriots. Not the kind who snear at us and CLAIM to be patriots. Like the Times and Mike Wallace and Dan Rather and Leslie Butt-the-Rear Stahl.
The point of the cartoon is that IF the Times were then as it is now, they would have announced D-Day.
Closer to 30 million and the NY Times still is proud of the Pulitzer that was awarded for Ukrainian blood.
For a real treat, go to www.marketwatch.com, type NYT in the stock search, and bring up a five year chart. The line goes straight down for the last four years. Most satisfying.
"but they covered up and lied about Stalin's extermination of 5,000,000+ Ukrainians by famine."
And their Walter Duranty shilled for communism and was awarded a Pulitzer prize in the 1930's, which is still proudly displayed at the NYT.
"Ok, the cartoon about the D-Day Invasion raises a question from me. Of course I wasn't here then but was the Times Terrorist this bad back then as well?"
I wasn't there either. But I heard that Gen. Eisenhower briefed the press with restrictions on their publication until after D-Day, and as he left the room they gave him a standing ovation.
Great thread!
Whatever the exact number, it seems to be a genocide worse than the holocaust. I guess the reason we don't hear as much about it is that the Times and their ilk saw Hitler as "right-wing" and Stalin, as a leftist, got a pass. The ends justify the means, apparently, even if the means involve almost unimaginable mass murder and suffering.
"Ok, the cartoon about the D-Day Invasion raises a question from me.
Of course I wasn't here then but was the Times Terrorist this bad back then as well?"
At least on one major WWII topic, The New York Times kept mum.
(from a previous post)
The New York Times:
Can't do enough to protect evil terrorists
AND
Didn't seem to do much when innocents were dying by the millions
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521812879/qid=1151539746/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9523415-6900716?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
And yes, there was a Sulzberger at the helm at that time as well.
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.