FFF gets it wrong... completely!

[Guest jizzdepapi]

Hey Fing:

 

leftist NYT? have the Sulzbergers and Safire bedded the Sandanistas? well, they did finally retire Atilla the Hun Rosenthal.

 

leftist is Mother Jones, In These Times, NACLA, the Progressive, the Nation, the Guardian, Z Magazine...

 

i suspect the editors of the Times spend a lot more time in bed with members of the State department, Council on Foreign Relations, the Heritage Foundation, and any number of corporations.

 

please let me know when you see some extensive analytical pieces critical of, for starters, the war on terrorism or the recent abridgement of civil rights and pieces highlighting the recent vacuous jingoism of the American patriot as might be expected in a truly leftist venue.

 

just a thought.

 

best,

jizz

 

p.s.: for anyone interested, a cool media watchdog site: http://www.fair.org (fairness and accuracy in reporting)

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Hey Fing:

>

>leftist NYT? have the Sulzbergers and Safire bedded the

>Sandanistas? well, they did finally retire Atilla the Hun

>Rosenthal.

>

>leftist is Mother Jones, In These Times, NACLA, the

>Progressive, the Nation, the Guardian, Z Magazine...

 

 

Apparently, it's not left enough for you. However, it doesn't change the fact that the NYT has turned into a mouthpiece for the far left.

 

And more power to them. It's a free country.

 

Patriotically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest regulation]

>Apparently, it's not left enough for you. However, it

>doesn't change the fact that the NYT has turned into a

>mouthpiece for the far left.

 

Again, you are making exactly the sort of fact-less, unsubstantiated accusation that you complained about earlier in connection with Ashcroft. Would a publication that is a "mouthpiece for the far left" run a series of articles taking the Clinton administration to task for ignoring evidence of nuclear espionage at Los Alamos and prodding the Justice Department to bring charges against Wen Ho Lee? Would it run a piece on a recent tour of Latin American capitals by Castro which pointed out that he was treated by other Latin leaders as "a dotty old uncle"? I think not.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Would a publication that is a

>"mouthpiece for the far left" run a series of articles

>taking the Clinton administration to task for ignoring

>evidence of nuclear espionage at Los Alamos and prodding the

>Justice Department to bring charges against Wen Ho Lee?

 

I would remind you that Clinton repeatedly fucked over the "far left" to protect his own political hide (see: welfare reform, Protection of Marriage Act, don't ask don't tell, etc.). The NYT was no great fan of Clinton's but they hated the Republicans even more so their enemy's enemy became their "friend" (as the saying goes).

 

In addition, I'm at a loss to see how the Wen Ho Lee case proves anything about being left, right, or in the middle.

 

>Would it run a piece on a recent tour of Latin American

>capitals by Castro which pointed out that he was treated by

>other Latin leaders as "a dotty old uncle"? I think not.

 

WOW! Now THAT'S a really strong indictment of Casto. Oof! Boy I bet that really hurt him!

 

You're gonna have to do alot better than that.

 

Solidly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest regulation]

>The NYT was no great fan of Clinton's but they hated

>the Republicans even more so their enemy's enemy became

>their "friend" (as the saying goes).

 

Once again, you are simply making a bunch of accusations without backing them up with any facts. Earlier you said you think people shouldn't do that. Apparently that wasn't true.

 

>In addition, I'm at a loss to see how the Wen Ho Lee case

>proves anything about being left, right, or in the middle.

 

Urging the Justice Department to prosecute a member of a minority group is not something anyone would expect from what you call "the far left."

 

>WOW! Now THAT'S a really strong indictment of Casto. Oof!

>Boy I bet that really hurt him!

 

I have no reason to think Fidel reads the Times or cares what they write about him. But those of us who actually know something about the history of his relations with Latin American nations understand what a huge difference there is between the way he was regarded by Latin leaders twenty years ago and the way he is regarded now, and that was the point that the Times made. It is not something that would appear in the pages of an organ of "the far left."

 

>You're gonna have to do alot better than that.

 

Of the two of us, I'm the only one who has posted any specific facts in this conversation. All you've done is continue to make exactly the sort of vague, unsubstantiated accusations you earlier said people shouldn't make. It's clear that you don't practice what you preach.