1/13/2011

29 Responses to “New York Times Lies?”

1. since when does the New York Times liken abortion to “killing the baby”?

   happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/13/2011 @ 9:49 pm

   
   

2. when it is convenient for them…. don;t worry, it won’t last.

   redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/13/2011 @ 9:54 pm

   
   

3. PS Feets: since its gonna be 80+ this weekend, ya wanna stop by and have a beer by the pool? we can post to all the frozen folks who read Pat.

   redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/13/2011 @ 9:55 pm

   
   

4. “PS Feets: since its gonna be 80+ this weekend, ya wanna stop by and have a beer by the pool? we can post to all the frozen folks who read Pat.”

   redc1c4 – Yo, I might go tent camping on a frozen lake. You want I should post from there?

   daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/13/2011 @ 9:58 pm

   
   

5. I can’t Mr. red I’m sick – just a bad cold – but one day this spring we will get together for sure i promise

   happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/13/2011 @ 9:58 pm

   
   

6. Maybe I’ll skip the tent.

   daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/13/2011 @ 9:59 pm

   
   

7. #1 since when does the New York Times liken abortion to “killing the baby”?

   You aren’t supposed to notice that part. Just focus on the crazy right-winger attacking a sweet sensitive girl over a poem about her exercising her constitutional rights.

   Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca…

   karmanline8 (dfae20) — 1/13/2011 @ 10:00 pm

   
   

8. You don’t get it. A “pro-choicer” would never recognise that there was a baby in the first place. The fact that he laughed about killing the baby, and about turning it into a baby-bomb, means that he acknowledged its existence, and is therefore in agreement with the pro-life view of reality. In other words, crazy as he is, he’s saner than the NYT editorial board.

   Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/13/2011 @ 10:29 pm

   
   

9. I’ve read some other quotes on this topic, and I think it’s not that clear what his stance was. This AP piece quotes him as saying:

   “Wow, she’s just like a terrorist, she killed a baby”

   Sarcastic? Possibly, but I’m not sure. The piece says he was laughing, but that doesn’t necessarily imply sarcasm.

   Regarding strapping a bomb to a fetus, this piece quotes him as saying:

   “Why don’t we just strap bombs to babies?”

   The “why don’t we” language could easily be a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum, i.e., ‘OK, if babies don’t matter, why don’t we use them as bombs?’.

   Also, the NYT is not the only publication with a quote about comparing the woman to a terrorist. The Guardian also says that Loughner compared the woman to a terrorist for killing the baby.

   Foo Bar (c1726e) — 1/13/2011 @ 10:46 pm

   
   

10. New York Times has tell so many lies for all these years. It is a liberal newspaper. They are trying to help the Democrats to will the election. It is unfair. The journalists have poor grammar and they are making this stuff up. They are playing politic. New York Times will start layoffs some more soon and close at door because their customers will stop buying their newspaper. I agree with Ann Coulter’s article.

    m (d65a99) — 1/14/2011 @ 2:45 am

    
    

11. The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft.

    Well yes, of course.
    Taking the property of others by force is the very definition of theft. The purpose is irrelevent. The ends don’t justify the means.
    As a Christian I believe there is a moral imperative to be charitable to those who can’t help themselves. It is virtuous only if done voluntarily. There is no virtue in giving to those who can, but won’t, provide for themselves.
    People who advocate taking the property of others by force (taxation) are not morally superior to those of us who believe we have the right to decide how our property is used and to whom it will go. A mugger on the street is morally superior to a do gooder. They’re both thieves but the mugger takes his own risks and doesn’t demand the sanction of his victims.

    SteveP (2ebe76) — 1/14/2011 @ 3:50 am

    
    

12. From a Christian standpoint, I don’t think the issue of taxation is particularly disputed – just open up your wallets and check the faces on your denarii. From a secular conservative standpoint, of course, that position doesn’t hold water, and I can understand in either circumstance a general conservative wish that government would facilitate increased charitable giving by private citizens by decreasing taxes which make such giving more difficult… although the tax deductibility of charitable giving looms large over that argument.

    Leviticus (50ef86) — 1/14/2011 @ 7:26 am

    
    

13. New York Times Lies?

    True dat.

    The Guardian also says that Loughner compared the woman to a terrorist for killing the baby.

    and you think they’re both straight up truthful publications?
    What color is the sky on your planet?

    least (edd6b2) — 1/14/2011 @ 8:15 am

    
    

14. Leviticus – “check the faces on your denarii…”

    Wait. Are you saying that we have to pay taxes to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln? (most of my bills don’t have other faces on them) I mean, rendering to Caesar had the advantage that Caesar was alive – but they haven’t come out with an Obama bill yet!

    (Not intended as an actual theological argument. If this had been a real theological argument it would have been 20 times as long and required footnotes in Greek and Hebrew.)

    Gesundheit (cfa313) — 1/14/2011 @ 8:22 am

    
    

15. I hate to say it, but the more of these head fakes the NYT’s made, the more clear it is that Jared was much more liberal than just random. It means nothing to liberalism itself, of course, but they are dispelling the notion he is conservative at all.

    Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/14/2011 @ 8:25 am

    
    

16. ______________________________________________

    Also in the New York Times, Paul Krugman

    Speaking of limousine liberals, here’s another one. The person who undoubtedly is a hero to folks like Krugman. The person in the White House during the last period of great economic stagnation:

    http://www.taxhistory.org:

    In the spring of 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched a public campaign against tax avoidance. It was not his first. After taking office, the president raised the issue repeatedly. Indeed, the revenue acts of both 1935 and 1936 — the crown jewels of New Deal tax reform — had both been privately conceived and publicly defended as anti-avoidance measures.

    Roosevelt had always played rough in the tax game, attacking individual taxpayers for shirking communal responsibilities. Most of the time he did this in general terms, denouncing “the rich” or “the privileged few.”

    Consider, for instance, the tax returns of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The returns were not released during FDR’s presidency, but had they been, they would have proved an embarrassment. Tax Analysts has recently acquired from the National Archives copies of the tax returns that Roosevelt filed between 1913 and 1937. And as a group, they reveal something striking: Roosevelt — a vicious and moralistic scourge of tax avoiders everywhere — had a penchant for minimizing his own taxes.

    During his first term in office, FDR repeatedly claimed that he was exempt from the high tax rates on personal income that Congress had enacted — and Roosevelt had approved — in the revenue acts of 1934 and 1935.

    In a series of letters to internal revenue officials, Roosevelt insisted that he could not be taxed at the heavy rates imposed on rich taxpayers during the mid-1930s. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution forbids any reduction in the president’s compensation during his term in office, Roosevelt pointed out. Since the new rates enacted in 1934 and 1935 effectively reduced that compensation, they could not be applied to the president’s salary.

    Taken as a whole, Roosevelt’s tax returns show a scrupulous attention to detail. Many of the forms seem to have been completed in his own hand, and he clearly played an active role in filing them (especially before he was elected president).

    But if Roosevelt met the legal standard for tax compliance, he fell short when judged by his own standards of tax morality. “It is enlightening,” wrote historian Mark Leff in his study of New Deal taxation, The Limits of Symbolic Reform, “to attempt to square Roosevelt’s distaste for tax avoidance with his own tax forms.” To be blunt, it can’t be done.

    Mark (411533) — 1/14/2011 @ 8:44 am

    
    

17. Thank you to Mark for that. This is where I get frustrated. I sooooo want to be able to remember that exact information when it would fit nicely in a conversation. I can think of some Rooseveltian liberals that I’m itching to smack down (non-violently, of course) with it.

    But, alas, when the moment comes I will not be able to recall the details.

    Gesundheit (cfa313) — 1/14/2011 @ 9:11 am

    
    

18. The person in the White House during the last period of great economic stagnation

    Not arguing the real point of your comment, but doesn’t that describe Jimmy Carter?

    It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

    To accurately describe Krugman’s beliefs, you would need to tack on one phrase–“by paying for government programs”. I suspect that he views government welfare as the modern replacement of private charity, and therefore sees no need for the latter. (which is perhaps why liberals give less to charity)

    The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft…. many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

    Absolutely true: that’s the standard libertarian position. From the libertarian POV, most of the people here are not supporters of small government: the conservative movement can be described as people who believe in small government except for particular topics, or (more negatively) people who believe in big government but only in areas of particular concern to them.
    There is, for instance, no way to reconcile the war on drugs with the ideals of small government, and no way to reconcile US foreign policy since at least the end of the Cold War (one arguably put that date as during the 1890s, in fact) with the ideals of small government. You can make a pragmatic or practical argument in favor of those things, but you can not make an argument that can be reconciled with the idea of small government.

    (I elided the middle sentence in Krugman’s paragraph–I’m not calling his reference to “violent” rhetoric true.)

    kishnevi (dfea67) — 1/14/2011 @ 9:37 am

    
    

19. “It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

    To accurately describe Krugman’s beliefs, you would need to tack on one phrase–”by by having others paying for government programs”.

    FIFY ~ See comment #16

    flicka47 (e43cc1) — 1/14/2011 @ 10:33 am

    
    

20. “New York Times Lies?”

    A have a question relating to punctuation.

    Shouldn’t that be an exclamation point rather than a question mark?

    Dave Surls (baf88e) — 1/14/2011 @ 11:04 am

    
    

21. No there is no surprise to indicate with the exclamation mark.

    SPQR (26be8b) — 1/14/2011 @ 11:06 am

    
    

22. I’m through with the right. I want to be a good boy.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 1/14/2011 @ 11:11 am

    
    

23. FIFY ~ See comment #16
    Not acceptable, unless you have evidence Krugman himself engages in the practice . There are plenty of liberals who don’t practice tax avoidance and tax evasion. For many of them, it is, quite literally, how they think of themselves as giving charity.

    kishnevi (bb994a) — 1/14/2011 @ 12:00 pm

    
    

24. “…Roosevelt’s tax returns show a scrupulous attention to detail…”
    Comment by Mark — 1/14/2011 @ 8:44 am

    When Hillary was a House-Judiciary staffer, perhaps she got a look at those FDR returns and was inspired thereafter to deduct the value of Bill’s used skivvies when they donated them to charity while in Arkansas?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/14/2011 @ 1:16 pm

    
    

25. kishnevi, and then they vote for Charles Rangel …

    SPQR (26be8b) — 1/14/2011 @ 1:35 pm

    
    

26. “The other side,” you see (meaning conservatives), does not believe that “it’s only right for the affluent to help the less fortunate.” According to Krugman. Except that conservatives give about 30 percent more to charity than liberals, even though conservative-headed households tend to make slightly less. So, it turns out that we believe it’s only right for the affluent to help the less fortunate. Krugman, you sanctimonious hypocrite. We just don’t believe in turning over money to an incompetent government in order to do it.

    Seriously, you pull one sentence from Krugman to discredit…..what again are you discrediting?

    One survey one time by ARTHUR FREAKING BRROKS said conservatives give more to charity (re: their churches than liberals (linking to eminent academic John Stossel is just beautiful, btw). Stossel interviewing current American Enterprise Institute (and all around Laffer-esque douchebag) Arthur Brooks is even funnier. brooks heads a ‘think-tank” which specializes in telling any lie corporate America tells them to (CO2 is good for the environment! Regulation of oil and coal is bad, and, since AEI is funded by the API and mining companies, they are very “fair.”

    Back to Brooks; He’s a Ayn Randian who believes charity is bad and is a partisan hack. He is the exact opposite of Krugman (without the Nobel). Quoting Brooks to prove a fact is as ridiculous as quoting Krugman.

    Nonethess, Krugman’s observation is not wrong: one side favored S-CHIP and Medicaid and Medicare and the Affordable Health Care Act; the other side felt that Graeme Lloyd’s parents had granite counter-tops and should have spent their money better and that they can decide where to put their health insurance money. You think poor people should ask a private group for help in hard times. I believe society should mandate that help.

    I know there ain’t apparently ONE conservative int he world who doesn’t love to strap on the victim mantle so he/she can parse every syllable, but could you take the hairshirt off for one day even?

    By the way, I like the civil way you and darleen click have exactly the same, nonsensical complaint about Krugman’s sentence. Perhaps, in this new interest in civility, you and dar-dar could make up? A Protein Wisdom/Patterico alliance would be really entertaining.

    timb (449046) — 1/14/2011 @ 2:50 pm

    
    

27. I don’t have my thesaurus handy. What is a synonym for “projection”?

    Simon Jester (c8876d) — 1/14/2011 @ 2:54 pm

    
    

28. _________________________________________

    said conservatives give more to charity (re: their churches than liberals

    Beyond what surveys or studies indicate, wouldn’t you say a close examination of your own life and mindset (and behavior) probably will reveal you’re no more humane and generous than anyone else, certainly — or ironically (at least in your eyes) — those who are your ideological opposites?

    I’ve observed too many liberals through the years to believe their politics/philosophy is anything more than superficial, if not outright phony. If you’re somehow different than the rest, I’d be surprised.

    New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, December 2008:

    This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy. Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

    When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires. It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives.

    According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    ^ Kristof’s fellow columnist at the New York Times, referring to Paul Krugman, apparently overlooked such information.

    Mark (411533) — 1/14/2011 @ 6:19 pm

    
    

29. “I believe society should mandate that help”

    Yeah, we already know that lefties believe they should be able to use government to steal money from people in order to give lefties free government handouts.

    Thanks for sharing.

    Dave Surls (875a62) — 1/14/2011 @ 8:50 pm