It's started: NYT article on McCain
- Thread starter Forwardassist
- Start date
toybox99615
New member
NYT credibility
interesting that when the NYT faults a Democrat the post are certainly favoring their reporting. When the NYT reports on a Republican scandal they are a left wing fanatics. Sure seems to appear the credibility is based on partisanship over other factors.
interesting that when the NYT faults a Democrat the post are certainly favoring their reporting. When the NYT reports on a Republican scandal they are a left wing fanatics. Sure seems to appear the credibility is based on partisanship over other factors.
Seems to me that events 8 years ago are still relevant:
http://mccain.bravenewfilms.org/blog/574-john-mccain-vs-john-mccain
http://mccain.bravenewfilms.org/blog/574-john-mccain-vs-john-mccain
toybox99615
New member
8 years ago seems relevant
only over a never-ending beating of Clinton-Monika and those events. Any other politician is not suppose to be responsible to what happened in the past.
only over a never-ending beating of Clinton-Monika and those events. Any other politician is not suppose to be responsible to what happened in the past.
only over a never-ending beating of Clinton-Monika and those events. Any other politician is not suppose to be responsible to what happened in the past.
Ok, I laughed.
That's kind of along the lines of "Were you lying then or are you lying now". . . Not that I expect politicians to be founts of honesty (I was raised in the US!), but I just get weird feeling from John McCain over stuff like this.
McCain knew that the NYT had this story for many many weeks. Obviously had their response planned out, and they still screwed it up. Denying something stated in a deposition is pretty glaring and obvious.
I expect next week it will be "When I said that America doesn't care if we are in Iraq for 1000 years, I meant only those that don't pay taxes, of course. Tax paying Americans certainly don't want to pay for a 1000 year war"
BoringAccountant
New member
Hmmm...so you are agreeing that the NYT is biased? From your post I gather you are mad at the Repubs who latch onto a story from the NYT when it presents a negative light of a Democrat, but not mad at the Democrats for latching onto a story about the Republicans
Seems to me, your issue is not with us disagreeing with the reliability of the article, but with the NYT. If all facts were presented clearly and without bias in the article then me and you would be in agreement over the article, not you trying to say, well it
I am of the belief that all of the current crop of Presidential candidates are of the same ilk. It will boil down to who is the least dangerous. I will confess to being a lifelong Republican so that will drive my vote. In my personal case, I have a very strong bias for McCain. He is a USS Forrestal Sailor and in fact was the pilot in the cockpit of the first plane to be hit by the missle and exploded on the deck at the beginning of the Forrestal fire. One of his bombs fell off his bird into the flaming fuel and exploded. Directly below that bomb was a compartment where a night crew, my old crew, had just gotten to sleep. The carnage was awful and included my best friend, about 3 good friends and about 6 other friends. He is a Shipmate who has been through two hells, the fire and his imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton. I just cannot make myself believe that such a man could be anything less than a good, honorable and trustworthy man, in spite of all the garbage being touted about him in the (absolutely truthful, unbiased) media, and people who are just parroting what they have gleaned from the aforementioned media and sources such as internet forums.
None of the events on the Forrestal have the slightest bearing on John McCain the presidential candidate.
Do I really need point out that McCain was involved in the Forrestal disaster by quirk of fate and not by planning?
John McCain the presidential candidate is a disaster waiting to enter the White House.
It's up to we patriotic Americans to stop him before he gets the nomination, much less the vote in November.
Do I really need point out that McCain was involved in the Forrestal disaster by quirk of fate and not by planning?
John McCain the presidential candidate is a disaster waiting to enter the White House.
It's up to we patriotic Americans to stop him before he gets the nomination, much less the vote in November.
toybox99615
New member
some old beliefs
JaserST4 your promoting the some old lines. Being implicated in a scandal is not a sign of corruption. I guess you simply believe they sit around having a coffee clutch then when there is nothing else to do they just type up a list of people they want to accuse for no reason.
McCain got implicated becasue he was involved. Not becasue he was going to run for president years latter and some other politician wanted to have Mccain's record tarnished. All reports indicate the ethic committee found he was only minimally involved. Minimally involved is not innocent is it?
Just like the NYT article that indicates McCain did favors by writing letter to the FCC for a lobbyist. The letters are a fact and well documented. McCain wants to claim he never supported any lobbyist; then he says writing such letters is a politicians duty. Which is it? Either he did favors and wrote the letters or he did not and the letters are fabricated lies. The issue has been turned into the NYT is just against McCain becasue he is a Republican. So lets hide the facts under the guise that the facts are irrelevant when its your favored candidate. Killing the messenger is not going to change the facts of the message.
JaserST4 your promoting the some old lines. Being implicated in a scandal is not a sign of corruption. I guess you simply believe they sit around having a coffee clutch then when there is nothing else to do they just type up a list of people they want to accuse for no reason.
McCain got implicated becasue he was involved. Not becasue he was going to run for president years latter and some other politician wanted to have Mccain's record tarnished. All reports indicate the ethic committee found he was only minimally involved. Minimally involved is not innocent is it?
Just like the NYT article that indicates McCain did favors by writing letter to the FCC for a lobbyist. The letters are a fact and well documented. McCain wants to claim he never supported any lobbyist; then he says writing such letters is a politicians duty. Which is it? Either he did favors and wrote the letters or he did not and the letters are fabricated lies. The issue has been turned into the NYT is just against McCain becasue he is a Republican. So lets hide the facts under the guise that the facts are irrelevant when its your favored candidate. Killing the messenger is not going to change the facts of the message.
toybox99615
New member
who is lying
Now there seems to be some real question of who is telling the truth in the McCain issue. Honest John says he never meet with " Lowell Paxson - a client of Washington-based lobbyist Vicki Iseman."
"Now Paxson himself has spoken out and said that he did meet with McCain in the senator's office and told him about the TV station issue. 'I remember going there to meet with him,' he told the Washington Post. 'I would love for you to write a letter,' Paxson recalls saying." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/johnmccain.uselections2008
It starting to smell bad (like most cover-ups that leave things buried in the depths) when the British can report more on the story of who met with whom than our media. Fox news where is the story hidden this time?
Why is it these politicians think than can deny any accusation by simply discrediting all the witnesses? Do they really believe the facts will not come to the surface before it is over? I think Honest John might be getting caught in a laps of memory becasue he'd never outright lie would he. Obviously the answer is the Brits are siding with the Democrats this election.
Now there seems to be some real question of who is telling the truth in the McCain issue. Honest John says he never meet with " Lowell Paxson - a client of Washington-based lobbyist Vicki Iseman."
"Now Paxson himself has spoken out and said that he did meet with McCain in the senator's office and told him about the TV station issue. 'I remember going there to meet with him,' he told the Washington Post. 'I would love for you to write a letter,' Paxson recalls saying." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/johnmccain.uselections2008
It starting to smell bad (like most cover-ups that leave things buried in the depths) when the British can report more on the story of who met with whom than our media. Fox news where is the story hidden this time?
Why is it these politicians think than can deny any accusation by simply discrediting all the witnesses? Do they really believe the facts will not come to the surface before it is over? I think Honest John might be getting caught in a laps of memory becasue he'd never outright lie would he. Obviously the answer is the Brits are siding with the Democrats this election.