You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New York Times Hit Peace on Boehner to come out in October
- Thread starter Navin Johnson
- Start date
Quote from bigdavediode:
What's been diverted? The story is about the New York Times (supposedly) writing an article about Boehner's alleged affair. Republicans posting here are outraged, OUTRAGED, that the New York Times is covering this when they did cover McCain, but they say covered Edwards "too slowly."
What's your opinion -- should the New York Times cover this, or should they cover it up?
You need to improve your reading comprehension.
The NYT apparently has a story on Boehner (whether true or not, TBD) that they are planning on releasing in October. The timing appears to be designed to cause him and Republicans the most damage possible. If they have the story, why not release it now and give him a chance to respond? Why not allow the press to verify the authenticity of the story? The NYT has a history of printing false stories in order to promote their political agenda.
IF THE STORY IS TRUE, THE NYT SHOULD PRINT IT NOW.
Quote from Navin Johnson:
You need to improve your reading comprehension.
The NYT apparently has a story on Boehner (whether true or not, TBD) that they are planning on releasing in October. The timing appears to be designed to cause him and Republicans the most damage possible. If they have the story, why not release it now and give him a chance to respond? Why not allow the press to verify the authenticity of the story? The NYT has a history of printing false stories in order to promote their political agenda.
IF THE STORY IS TRUE, THE NYT SHOULD PRINT IT NOW.
So you don't care if the facts are correct, you want them rush into this without verifying the details and running it by their legal department?
What if they find out that it's false?
Quote from Trader666:
Even if Boehner did have an affair, it's still no reason not to stop the democraps' socialist welfare state agenda.
People are so fed up I don't think it would matter, especially if he did a Letterman style mea culpa.
I agree with that -- I believe the public is more forgiving on irrelevant stuff like this than many realize.
However, I would find it entertaining simply because the Republicans endlessly trumpet morality, family values and other superficial, fake "issues" which detract from real policy debate.
Quote from bigdavediode:
So you don't care if the facts are correct, you want them rush into this without verifying the details and running it by their legal department?
What if they find out that it's false?
Run along fat Dave. It is clear that you lack the brain power to carry on an honest discussion.
That's exactly what this is, true or not. Taking what I said before further... I have no idea what Boehner has personally said about family values because I tune shit like that out as irrelevant, and I have no idea if he had an affair or not, nor do I care. Because I'd rather have a conservative hypocrite as house speaker than a liberal hypocrite... especially one who is intent on turning the country into a socialist welfare state.
Quote from bigdavediode:
superficial, fake "issues" which detract from real policy debate.
Quote from Trader666:
That's exactly what this is, true or not. Taking what I said before further... I have no idea what Boehner has personally said about family values because I tune shit like that out as irrelevant, and I have no idea if he had an affair or not, nor do I care. Because I'd rather have a conservative hypocrite as house speaker than a liberal hypocrite... especially one who is intent on turning the country into a socialist welfare state.
By contrast, I'm a fiscal conservative and will vote for whatever party will reduce the deficit. Clearly the Republicans have not been, and are not, that party.
Looking at the CBO projections right now, and the already reduced deficit this year, the Democrats seem to be doing it (albeit too slowly).
Quote from bigdavediode:
What's your opinion -- should the New York Times cover this, or should they cover it up?
The only people who are going to care about this are those who already share the same thought processes as those at the NYTimes (you know, left coast, right coast crowd, MSM media, Axelrod on the Sunday news programs trying to deflect the negative press his boss/ bff has been getting of late). Those in the Right camp will just decry it as OP likes to describe it, but the independents will not let it affect them because the subject of this upcoming election is not a morality play but a fiscal one for them.
If the NY Times does go ahead with it, lets hope they did a better job of fact checking it than Rather, et al, did on their hit "peace".