Comments on: Indict the NY Times! http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/indict-the-ny-times/ Where The Old Media Meets The New Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:37:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: John http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/indict-the-ny-times/comment-page-1/#comment-92203 John Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:17:16 +0000 http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/29/indict-the-ny-times/#comment-92203 I would have bolded allegedly if I could have, Gregg. I would have bolded allegedly if I could have, Gregg.

]]> By: Administrator http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/indict-the-ny-times/comment-page-1/#comment-92140 Administrator Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:50:00 +0000 http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/29/indict-the-ny-times/#comment-92140 John, Your use of the word "allegedly" in the following sentence makes anything you say irrelevant to me and I can't understand for the life of me why you waste your time. "The very same ilk of ā??terroristsā? that allegedly pulled off the highly sophisticated 9/11 attacks would not assume that after such an event they would be tracked and wiretapped? Preposterous." Gregg John,

Your use of the word “allegedly” in the following sentence makes anything you say irrelevant to me and I can’t understand for the life of me why you waste your time.

“The very same ilk of ā??terroristsā? that allegedly pulled off the highly sophisticated 9/11 attacks would not assume that after such an event they would be tracked and wiretapped? Preposterous.”

Gregg

]]> By: John http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/indict-the-ny-times/comment-page-1/#comment-91721 John Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:42:08 +0000 http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/29/indict-the-ny-times/#comment-91721 Bush is seeking immunity for his past war crimes, and the complicit Congress is aiding and abetting such an act. Amazingly, Jack Cafferty of CNN had the courage to report all of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ Bush is seeking immunity for his past war crimes, and the complicit Congress is aiding and abetting such an act. Amazingly, Jack Cafferty of CNN had the courage to report all of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

]]> By: Administrator http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/indict-the-ny-times/comment-page-1/#comment-91418 Administrator Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:09:22 +0000 http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/29/indict-the-ny-times/#comment-91418 Thanks for your insightful comments Shawn. Really salient and cogent thoughts. Care to cite any specific examples of the claims (not \\\"questions\\\" as you call them but specific claims) that I refute in my book to which you refer? Would love to hear all your examples. Since you have read a \"good portion\" of my book, I am sure you have quite a list compiled from which you can sustantiate your assertion. By the way, about 99% of the claims I reference and refute are not \\\"questions.\\\" They are statements. I am assuming that you can distinguish between a declarative statement and an inquiry. The statements (\"claims\") that I chronicle in my book are statements made by those on the left as if they were statements of fact- not \"casual differences of opinion.\" What I do in my book is point out that the major claims of the left which are stated as if they were empirically true, are in fact, empirically and substantively false. Truth is not relative Sean. By its very definition and according to the law of noncontradiction, truth is absolute. At any rate, I look forward to your specific citations. Cheers! Gregg Thanks for your insightful comments Shawn. Really salient and cogent thoughts.

Care to cite any specific examples of the claims (not \\\”questions\\\” as you call them but specific claims) that I refute in my book to which you refer? Would love to hear all your examples. Since you have read a \”good portion\” of my book, I am sure you have quite a list compiled from which you can sustantiate your assertion.

By the way, about 99% of the claims I reference and refute are not \\\”questions.\\\” They are statements. I am assuming that you can distinguish between a declarative statement and an inquiry.

The statements (\”claims\”) that I chronicle in my book are statements made by those on the left as if they were statements of fact- not \”casual differences of opinion.\” What I do in my book is point out that the major claims of the left which are stated as if they were empirically true, are in fact, empirically and substantively false. Truth is not relative Sean. By its very definition and according to the law of noncontradiction, truth is absolute.

At any rate, I look forward to your specific citations.

Cheers!
Gregg

]]> By: Shawn http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/indict-the-ny-times/comment-page-1/#comment-91196 Shawn Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:15:54 +0000 http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/29/indict-the-ny-times/#comment-91196 the answers to liberal lies? is this a book you wrote? man, how embarrasing for you. after reading a good portion of the book I noticed that there is not one lie in there, but a bunch of questions people have been asking for years. no lies. just questions. do you hate questions. do they "confuse" you? siticking to a bunch of planned out bullet points will not make a learned person of you. try to grow. the left is not againsed you. you are agaised you. there are many ways to view facts. can you not see that? people have different beliefs. Yell all you want, you cannot change that. the answers to liberal lies? is this a book you wrote? man, how embarrasing for you. after reading a good portion of the book I noticed that there is not one lie in there, but a bunch of questions people have been asking for years. no lies. just questions. do you hate questions. do they “confuse” you? siticking to a bunch of planned out bullet points will not make a learned person of you. try to grow. the left is not againsed you. you are agaised you. there are many ways to view facts. can you not see that? people have different beliefs. Yell all you want, you cannot change that.

]]> By: John http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/indict-the-ny-times/comment-page-1/#comment-91110 John Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:17:39 +0000 http://www.punditreview.com/2006/09/29/indict-the-ny-times/#comment-91110 The government would have a difficult time proving that the leaking of the NSA program materially injured the country's national security. In essence, the government would have to argue that before the leak of the NSA program the "terrorists" would not have anticipated that they would have been bugged when communicating with individuals inside this country. The very same ilk of "terrorists" that allegedly pulled off the highly sophisticated 9/11 attacks would not assume that after such an event they would be tracked and wiretapped? Preposterous. The government would have a difficult time proving that the leaking of the NSA program materially injured the country’s national security. In essence, the government would have to argue that before the leak of the NSA program the “terrorists” would not have anticipated that they would have been bugged when communicating with individuals inside this country. The very same ilk of “terrorists” that allegedly pulled off the highly sophisticated 9/11 attacks would not assume that after such an event they would be tracked and wiretapped? Preposterous.

]]>