Forums | MacLife

Gonzales is lucky he isn't in prison.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Not political opinions - the fact that someone with his qualifications would be extremely useful to many high end law firms.

I'd have the same opinion if he was Al Gore's left wing lover.

Hell - I have the same opinion about Al Gore despite his blatantly exposed twisting of the facts for his film.

Dude, you have no facts at all. Just assumptions. It's cool, there's nothing wrong with that. Just be honest, mmkay?

Take a look at what I said -

They probably liked the story and didn't bother checking the credibility of the sources.
It's happened before. Several times.

Taking the NYT at their word when they have had faulty reporting numerous times in the past is more fact based than my statements.

Note that the only source they named did not state anything that even remotely backs up the claim.
These un-named sources that journalists are using have become an excuse to either downright lie or be lazy in their fact gathering.

IMHO - the first time a journalist uses an un-named source that turns out to be wrong, he should be severely reprimanded by the editor. The second time, he should be shown the unemployment line. I don't care how big or small the story is. Editors these days don't have balls anymore, and their papers are no longer believable as a result.

How often does an unnamed source prove to be wrong? And any guess as to why they have to use them so often? Could it be because no one in government will speak on the record anymore?

At any rate, the old rule of journalism still stands: if a newspaper gets its facts wrong, it can get sued into the stone age. In this case, Gonzales could sue the NYT for millions for defaming his character.

That's how it works, my man.

How often does an unnamed source prove to be wrong?

Don't know - but look at this case logically.
Remove your hate for the guy and look at his resume - lots of places would LOVE to have him and would pay him very well.

It's difficult to see when you dislike him so much - and that very likely may be why the journalist was so quick to believe the source knew what the smurf they were talking about, just like what happened with rathergate.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

At any rate, the old rule of journalism still stands: if a newspaper gets its facts wrong, it can get sued into the stone age. In this case, Gonzales could sue the NYT for millions for defaming his character.

That's how it works, my man.

Since when if the error was "in good faith"?
A retraction below the fold on page 14 is how it works isn't it.

They'd be on extremely thin legal ice, no question; no editor would ever want to take the chance.

There's also the issue of the paper's credibility, which is important to their marketing. Doing what resedit suggests would destroy them right quick. Just look at Dan Rather: decades of work undone by one bad story.

jerwin wrote:

God, the republicans are thin skinned. Bunch of pussies.

Ya, that's something I have really noticed over the last 20 years. How whiny and simpering the right has become. For all their macho posturing when you really pay attention you see what a bunch of spoiled whiny, whimpering children they have become.
The whole Iraq thing is a classic example. When you really strip away te bullsmurf what that whole thing boils down to is a childish temper tantrum.

Last edited by Pariah (2008-04-13 7:53 pm)

Here's a good one -

"Oh dear, during an extra-curricular sports activity, outside of school hours, a coach held a voluntary prayer meeting - whatever shall we do!"

That's enough Rez.
They talk that smurf just to get a rise out of people.

Oh no - that evil Bush administration wants to help fund the faith based recovery programs that have an extremely high success rate, we can't have that!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

yes ... THEY

There is so little trolling towards liberals around here it doesn't even make the needle twitch.
You may have had a point,





3 years ago.

resedit wrote:

Oh my!
The boyscouts won't let a gay man take a bunch of young adolescent boys out camping in the woods, oh the horror!

Yes, because gay = pedophile.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

yes ... THEY

There is so little trolling towards liberals around here it doesn't even make the needle twitch.
You may have had a point,





3 years ago.

The classic case is the way the right does not want to pay for anything, they have the childish idea everything is free and erupt in a temper tantrum at the suggestion that they should actually pay for the things they do.
Their answer to everything is tax less and borrow more.

Last edited by Pariah (2008-04-13 8:23 pm)

Here's the problem.

Suppose Dewey Cheatam and Howe does a lot of business with the administration. Ordinarily, a man like Gonzalez, because of his experience, would be heavily recruited by such a law firm. But Gonzalez is a lighting rod for controversy, not least because of his role in advocating torture.

Would any responsible employee of DC&H talk on the record? Of course not. Existing contacts with the administration would be threatened. But ethical concerns  about a public figure are still news worthy. So, unnamed sources are used. Simple.

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

That's enough Rez.
They talk that smurf just to get a rise out of people.

OK.
My point is made.

Yes, your point that you and kev can respond to Pariah's blanket statements with your own "equally, if not more" retarded blanket statements.

What a lovely "point."

I was just whining about the left whining about the right being whiners.
You don't have to whine about it.