O’Reilly Falsely Claims NYT Failed To Cover JFK Terror Plot On Front Page
O’Reilly Falsely Claims NYT Failed To Cover JFK Terror Plot On Front Page
Bill O’Reilly calls the New York Times “quasi-socialistic” and has placed the newspaper on his enemies list. Last night, he devoted an entire segment of his show to attacking the Times for not covering the arrests made in an alleged JFK airport terrorist plot on the front page.
“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on — ready — page 37, right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant,” O’Reilly said. He claimed the Times “isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11.”
O’Reilly explained the conspiracy: “The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point,” and since the Times “desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, The Times is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again.” O’Reilly called this “the hallmark of the far left.” Watch it:
One problem: the New York Times did cover the JFK terror plot on the front page of its Sunday edition. You wouldn’t know it from watching O’Reilly, who chose to show only the top fold of the front page during his broadcast. “Now I’m not making this up,” he told his viewers. “You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact.” But O’Reilly is lying.
Here’s the front page as shown on O’Reilly:
But the Sunday New York Times did feature a headline on the alleged JFK terror plots on its front page. It was just below the fold, which O’Reilly chose to hide.
Transcript:
O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Relax, the war on terror is not that big of deal. That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo.
Over the weekend, four Muslims were accused of planning to blowup JFK Airport here in New York City. That comes on the heels of six Muslims arrested for planning to kill U.S. soldiers in New Jersey. But hey, don’t be alarmed. According to John Edwards and The New York Times, this is no big deal.
In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.
Now apparently The Times isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11. On page one of Sunday’s New York Times was this story. Some poor people in India making bricks.
Now I’m not making this up. You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact. On page one, The New York Times instead of the JFK terror arrests we saw some Indian people with bricks.
Now why did The New York Times do that? It’s not hard to figure it out. The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts.
Since The New York Times desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, The Times is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again. Then The Times will say despite the fascism of the Bush administration, it could not protect us.
So The Times wins both ways. The paper diminishes the war on terror by putting it on page 37, but if something bad ever happened, it can attack President Bush.
Now this is the hallmark of the far left. We saw it again last night in the Democratic debate when the far left candidate John Edwards once again called the war on terror a bumper sticker.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
This guy is such an idiot. How can you Fox News fans give this guy your eyes and ears on a nightly basis? He lies to you constantly to get you to believe crap that simply isn’t true.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmIn billy’s defense, maybe he he only glanced at the Sunday Times at the news stand while he was buying porn.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmO’Rielly lieing? No way. He is an affirmed seeker of the truth!!!!
Please excuse me, I just threw up.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:31 pmHow someone with such little credibility is given such a pulpit to spew his crap from is a blight on our democracy.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:32 pmSo…O’Reilly lies about the NYT coverage of the latest of the administration’s lies.
Weird kind of symmetry there…
June 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pmif you don’t do what bill wants, you hate america. If you don’t approve of the wars, you must be a terrorist, if you don’t love bush, you must be a socialist.
These people make me sick - constantly spewing the propaganda. Personally, I think the whole terror plot was a sham to build up fear, but that’s another issue.
All this guy, and plenty others in the media, seems to do is try to tell us how we should hate ideas he opposes. But, the reality is much different….it’s people like O’Reilly that act with complete hatred for everything this country stands for…
Some interesting reading:
“The America-Haters Strike Again”
June 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ the_america_haters_strike_again
It’s not O’Reilly’s fault that he can’t read…(it’s the secular progressive’s fault)
June 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmO’Reilly is always spewing nonsense, so ignore him.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmA magazine with a centerfold and a falafel O’Reilly can handle.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmA newspaper with a fold and a story completely baffles him.
He brought Colbert into this?
The difference between O’Reilly and Colbert: Colbert would run the same story, then the on-screen graphics would show how what he said is a lie. That makes it funny. O’Reilly? Well he just lies.
Once again, parody has more “truthiness” than the real deal. O’Reilly is sad and pathetic.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmPlease don’t call me a troll or a Republican for this but, he is right - the article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference to the story on the interior page (metro section).
I receive the print version of the Times. I remember thinking, that’s good - they’ve put this on page 37 instead of on the front page, because, if previous terror scares are any indication, within 48 hours this will have been downgraded from “the end of the world” to “cheesy”.
Think Progress can do better, and 99 percent of the time does.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pm“O’Reilly Falsely Claims…” Like I haven’t seen that a thousand times. Do I really need to read after that? Do you really expect me to? Can we just conclusively declare him a propagandist and be done with it?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:36 pmI’m not a fan of O’Really or Faux, but from the picture given us of below the fold I cannot make out much of a headline or whether the story is “covered” on the front page.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pmWasn’t it an old cliche that broadsheet readers were smarter than tabloid readers? You know, smart enough to flip the darn thing over?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm…(it’s the secular progressive’s fault)
Comment by kelso
____________________________
Oh, thanks a lot! I’m trying to forget O’Reilly’s rant about this and my own ridiculous yelling at the TV telling the buffoon what he can do with what for how long and to what degree of force.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmSo what’s the big deal? He’ll just issue a correction and an apology, right?
…. Right?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pmBelly O’Really lost it when he saw the picture of the third world adobe brick-maker, jealous because he knows he’ll never even get his picture in the Times.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pmeddy tompkins and leftcoast are correct. That is not front-page coverage. That is a below-the-fold blurb (not even the lede paragraph of an article) referring readers to the interior “Metro” section of the paper, where the article was placed.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmI expect a retraction on tonight’s show
right after the ant stands on his hind legs and converses with me
June 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmSSDD
June 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmO’Reilly is a liar. Plain and simple.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThat is not front-page coverage. That is a below-the-fold blurb (not even the lede paragraph of an article) referring readers to the interior “Metro†section of the paper, where the article was placed.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Wow. What’s the weather like where you are Exley? You know, a place where something printed on the front page is “not front-page coverage”?
Bet it’s nice and balmy. And I bet the mnargaritas are s-s-s-strong.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmPlease don’t call me a troll or a Republican for this but, he is right - the article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference to the story on the interior page (metro section).
Apparently the Times suspected, correctly, that this new “terror plot” would turn out to be as meaningful and credible as the “Fort Dix Pizza Deliveryman Caper”. As Keith Olbermann pointed out, BuschCo uses “terror plots” so often for political gain, it’s getting almost impossible to not doubt them when they claim they’ve disrupted yet another one.
What will it be next, gay guys in Alabama plotting to shut down a Hooters?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmBTW, Dild O’Reilly is a moron.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmthe article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference to the story on the interior page (metro section).
Comment by eddy tompkins — June 5, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Hey eddy. Glad you could join us. No troll bashing or flame throwing from me (I leave that for Jake, Daryll, michael, and a few others)
Just wanted to point out that O’Leily stated
“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant.”
Which is false. Mr.Keller put the JFK story on page 1, then continued the article on page 37 (which the Times usually does).
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmAgain, O’Liely lied.
Had he said “notice that the JFK story was delegated to a small space on the NY Times front page”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and Billy Boy could be harassing an intern with a falafel.
Exley
And O’Reilly in his “fair and balanced” manner gave the full details of how the story was presented? Or did he leave out some information to insure that the people “decide” about the NYT the way he wanted?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pm#17 This is a ridiculous semantic distinction. Readers are alerted to the story on the front page. That is front page coverage. Get over it.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmthe interior “Metro†section of the paper, where the article was placed.
Where local news always goes in the NYT, with one awful exception that I can recall.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:50 pm“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.”
This is not a lie, the story was not on the front page, it was on page 37 just as OReilly stated. There was a quick blurb on the front page, but no story.
The real question is that why would the NY Times not put the story as the lead story on the front page?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pmCan the story be found on Page one? Is the story on Page one Exley?
The assertion and statement by Dildo Oreilly is it is not on page one, it is on page 37. He is wrong and you are wrong.
Checkmate.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pmTerror plot. What a joke, this ‘terror plot’, just like all the other terror plots since 9/11, are nothing but a thinly veiled attempt by BushCo to scare the American public into following them blindly. So, in the past two days there have been two stories out of Iraq proving that BushCo has no intention of leaving Iraq. Ever.
These terror plots are just a distraction.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pmIn billy’s defense, maybe he he only glanced at the Sunday Times at the news stand while he was buying porn.
Hey, Billy’s doesn’t “buy” porn. He only rents it.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pmO’reilly did say the story wasn’t on page one, which is false, had he said the story was placed below the fold, and not headlined that would have been correct, but he didn’t. Exley I don’t know why you would defend O’Reilly. I don’t think you have anything in common with him.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmIn fairness, Billo probably never reads newspapers–so this could have been an honest mistake.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmand rupert’s gonna put those journalistic credentials to work on the wall street journal.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pmHeterodoxy, that’s “Dild O’Reilly”…
June 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIt looks like the story begins on page one, y’all. It’s right there.
It also appears that the story got all the coverage it deserved — and more.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThe real question is that why would the NY Times not put the story as the lead story on the front page?
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
How many complex front page stories are completely discussed on the front page and not continued on another page?
That’s right - none.
They all start out on the front page, like this story did, and continue elsewhere in the paper.
Read a few and see what I’m talking about.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmHey, for an alleged News outfit that thinks all blacks look alike tihs kind of crap is a step up for their coverage.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#24 Hey DRxJ,
“Mr.Keller put the JFK story on page 1, then continued the article on page 37.”
Technically, that is not correct. The article is not “continued” on page 37. It begins on page 37. What you see (barely…clever of TP to make the image so small that we can’t readily make out what it says) is a “See Inside” blurb referring readers to another section of the paper, the “Metro” Section.
Essentially what The Times did is treat the story like movie review — “See review of ‘Spider-Man 3′ in the “Arts & Leisure Section.”‘
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmO’Reilly makes a couple million a year but they apparently can’t afford fact checkers at Fox Noise.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThis is not a lie, the story was not on the front page, it was on page 37 just as OReilly stated. There was a quick blurb on the front page, but no story.
Comment by timmmmmehhh!! — June 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Okay timmy.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pmReal simple.
was it on the front page, or not???
Hmmmm…..the story should have been above the fold, head line news. And I believe this was O’Reilly’s point.
Everyone knows that the on the front page above the fold are the headlines that the paper wants people to read first.
The New York Times, yes a pro-Democratic party paper, I know, I am the greatest President ot have ever set foot on the Oval Office rug, is against the war on terror and just like my quarky, good looking, $400 dollar hair cut Edwards, it believes it is a bumper sticker.
The New York Times knows that stories like this are good news for President Bush, and we can’t have any good news for Bush, we just can’t.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pm“The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts.”
ROTFLMAO.
Come on Bildo, this is just lame. Talk about “no spin”…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pmHeterodoxy,
“Can the story be found on Page one? Is the story on Page one Exley?”
No. A blurb — not even the lede paragraph — referring readers to another section of the paper is found below the fold on page one. The article does not appear until page 37, outside of the paper’s main section, in the “Metro” section.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmPeople, think about it. Was this ‘terror plot’ deserving of front page NYT coverage. Personally I think not. Pizza delivery boys attacking Fort Dix - a place where there are trained, gun-toting soldiers. Lighting a match as some pipe 40 f*cking miles from JFK? Come on.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI sent an email to his address, asking how he could possibly spew such lies and claim to be better than the colbert report…ha
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm#30 Namtillaku is 100% correct. The propaganda news conference stated they thwarted a devaststing catastrphe that would have blown up 40 mile pipeline, airport, resevior, and boroughs eclipsing 9/11. Either they are incompetent law enforcement retards given it is IMPOSSIBLE for those events to occur based on pipeline structure, stop gaps, and physics OR they intentionally lied to promulgate a lie.
You decide if we have incompetent ‘leaders’ or fear propagandists.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmtimmy,
because as weve found out, it is, like many of the other ‘terror’ arrests lately, there’s not really much to talk about. The plan would never have worked.
Plus, why don’t you guys get this? These whackos that want to do these things, are looking for headlines. It legitimizes them. If we show them that there attempts to harm us will not get them headlines, it does take away some of the motivation. They need the headlines to make what they do effective at all. NYT did the right thing by putting the ’story’ on the back page, but leading it on the front page.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmDont you think O’rielly is becoming increasingly irrelevant?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmDon’t believe me? Then let the events speak for themselves…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmEssentially what The Times did is treat the story like movie review — “See review of ‘Spider-Man 3′ in the “Arts & Leisure Section.â€â€˜
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
That’s your actual point Exley - that this story wasn’t treated like the end of the world news story in which you see it.
I highly recommend George Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of an Elephant” to help you understand your mindset versus the Progressive mindset, in which this isn’t as important as you think it is.
It cmes down to opinion, not fact for your outrage. And it’s manipulated opinion based in the fact that you cons think the world is a relatively bad place where you need a strict father figure to protct you. We see the world as a relatively good place (reality supports us actually), where living and let living works better than picking fights just to justify having an army of body guards.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmSo what’s the big deal? He’ll just issue a correction and an apology, right?
…. Right?
Comment by KRank — June 5, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
for what?
and the same correction and apologies that the New York Times issues when they are caught lying and reporting the wrong thing? Takes the NYT over a month and then they put it in tiny letters on page 37. this is how the NYT issues corrections.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmPoor child Exley, you are embarrassing yourself. No amount of semantic spin can prove your false statement. The headline and ORIGIN is found on page one. That is fact in Rape-Public-Can world.
Just be a man and answer the question — can it be found on page 1/
CHECKMATE.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmI really hope Colbert picks up on this. That will be a funny bit!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmO’Reilly wants the story on page one to scare the American people so they’ll be more willing to follow King George blindly.
Osama wants the American people to be scared so that more Americans will be willing to give up their liberties.
O’Reilly wants American troops to stay in Iraq until the war on terror is won (meaning forever).
Osama wants American troops to stay in Iraq forever for target practice and to increase the hatred towards Americans.
O’Reilly and Osama have similar goals.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmO’Reilly = terrorist-lover
Exley,
I’m going to have to say….WRONG.
It appears to be a headline, with a long paragraph that then continues on page 37.
So yes, it is a headline on page one (a wraparound headline, but a headline none the less)
but I do agree, it’s hard to read. But why didn’t O’liely point this out to begin with?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThis is not a lie, the story was not on the front page, it was on page 37 just as OReilly stated. There was a quick blurb on the front page, but no story.
Comment by timmmmmehhh!! — June 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Okay timmy.
Real simple.
was it on the front page, or not???
Comment by DRxJ — June 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
OkDR.stupid,
June 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmReal Simple
was it on the front page ABOVE the fold or not????
You decide if we have incompetent ‘leaders’ or fear propagandists.
Comment by Heterodoxy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Can I vote for both options? :D
June 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pmHow many complex front page stories are completely discussed on the front page and not continued on another page?
That’s right - none.
They all start out on the front page, like this story did, and continue elsewhere in the paper.
Read a few and see what I’m talking about.
Comment by unbelievable
You are right. I just think that a paper based in a city that had 9/11 should give more coverage of a thwarted terror plot that would have blown up an airport in that city.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pmPoor child Exley, you are embarrassing yourself. No amount of semantic spin can prove your false statement. The headline and ORIGIN is found on page one. That is fact in Rape-Public-Can world.
Just be a man and answer the question — can it be found on page 1/
CHECKMATE.
Comment by Heterodoxy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Just answer the question, my Dumbcrat tool, can it be found on page 1 ABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pmOkay timmy.
Real simple.
was it on the front page, or not???
Comment by DRxJ
Show me where OReilly lied.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmAll you right wing idiots are just fu@king crazy. Your trying to tell me that that this warrents front page news? Some facts about the JFK “Terror” plot:
John Goglia, a former member of National Transportation Safety Board, said that if the plot had ever been carried out, it would likely have sparked a fire but little else, and certainly not the mass carnage authorities described.
Even if the attackers had managed to blow up a fuel tank, the impact would be limited, he said, citing the example of North Vietnamese forces attacking US fuel dumps during the Vietnam war.
“They hit the fuel tanks with pretty big rockets. You would get a big fire but not a big explosion other than the rocket.”
“There is a difference between just exploding the tank and a huge explosion. The tank may explode and blow up some metal, but that certainly wouldn’t go very far,” he said.
His comments contrasted with those of US Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, who insisted at the weekend that “the devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable.”
Jake Magish, an engineer with Supersafe Tank Systems, also cast doubt on the credibility of the plot, saying: “The fantasy that I’ve heard about the people saying ‘they will blow the tank and destroy the airport,’ is nonsense.”
“There are people there responding to hysteria, I think. But from an engineering point of view, if someone is successful in blowing a hole into a tank, they will just have a fire from one tank.
“There is no way for the fire to go from tank to tank, that is nonsense. It just won’t happen.”
Besides the alleged plotters’ capability, other questions have focused on the main source in the probe — a convicted drug dealer who infiltrated the group and whose sentence was pending as part of his cooperation with police.
Neal Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times there was also a danger in overstating how serious or sophisticated a plot really was.
“There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases,” he said. “To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia,” he said.
The New York Times on Sunday pointedly avoided giving much coverage to the alleged plot, devoting only a brief on its front page continued on the local section, despite the story breaking in the early afternoon on Saturday.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmPresident Clinton/valianttheloser,
“and the same correction and apologies that the New York Times issues when they are caught lying and reporting the wrong thing?”
I assume, as per usual, you have no facts to back this assertion?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmOMG - ALL of you arguing about where the article appears in the paper are completely missing the point here. Wake up - PLEASE!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmSo O’Reilly would have us believe that the Time is biased…because they didn’t post a story that enforces the Republican image on the very front page of the paper in a position that O’Reilly clearly felt it would be more visible?
Does O’Reilly still believe that he is the one who is unbiased and everyone else is the “loony left”? I mean, O’Reilly doesn’t care that the story gets reported somewhere. He wants it to be the dominant story and wants it on the very front page.
Clearly O’Reilly believes that he should control the news agenda for everyone in America and he should tell people what stories to run, where and how. That’s f***ing crazy. Seriously.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmwas it on the front page ABOVE the fold or not????
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Stop trying to move the goal posts. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint was that it wasn’t there at all, and it’s been proven that it was. You lost. Deal with it.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmOMG - ALL of you arguing about where the article appears in the paper are completely missing the point here. Wake up - PLEASE!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
and the DailyKOOKOOs fools are out in force. Ah my tools, we Democratic left wingers put out propaganda for you guys, and look how you swallow it, faster than Monica swallowed my….well you know what.
how easy it is to fool the masses of the left. how easy. We Democrats have the best communication staff in the world. YES!
We need you tools, we need you my mindless masses, we need you to stay in power.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmActually, isn’t the far bigger distortion regarding John Edwards?
John Edwards’ complaint is that “war on terror” is treated as bumper sticker politics. He has not argued it is “not that big of a deal” as Bildo puts ir. In fact, Edwards argued the opposite.
And because Edwards is correct, his views must be distorted on the O’Reilly Fakkktor. Because that’s what this jerk does for a living.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmCaption Contest:
And now a man with a tape recorder up his nose….
(French national anthem playing)
June 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThis story didn’t deserve to be on page 1. A handful of incompetents attempting an impoosible stunt is more like the bad plot of a B movie. Typical.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmwas it on the front page ABOVE the fold or not????
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Stop trying to move the goal posts. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint was that it wasn’t there at all, and it’s been proven that it was. You lost. Deal with it.
Comment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
I don’t give a shit what O’Reilly says, I don’t like him, he is always putting me and my wife down.
The FACT is, my tool, that the New YOrk Times didn’t report the story above the fold.
I am not moving the goal post, my sheep, I am stating a fact.
that you don’t like it is something else. Deal with it.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
Comment by President Clinton
Point out or link the text where Dild O’Reilly even asserts that is even in the discussion or relevent. That is the weakest and most lame fall back deflection ever. What a dumba$$. This isn’t hannity chat idiot, there are actual critical thinkers here who see through your drivel.
How painful is your dying idealogy? It has been excruciating to us.
CHECKMATE!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmI cannot believe the as$hat who said it is not on the front page.
Look at the freakin picture!! Its on the front page!!
You asked me not to call you a Repuke troll.
But you are one, you LIE just like OReilly.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmJust answer the question, my Dumbcrat tool, can it be found on page 1 ABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
PrezCee, are you saying that O’Reilly’s claim was that the NYT did not have the story ABOVE THE FOLD on Page 1?
Or are you saying the BELOW THE FOLD on Page 1 doesn’t count as “Page 1″?
Which is it? Thanks.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmJust answer the question, my Dumbcrat tool, can it be found on page 1 ABOVE the fold?
Comment by President Clinton
valiantthehater,
Front page is front page. It make no difference WHERE an item is located.
Quit squirming.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmYou are right. I just think that a paper based in a city that had 9/11 should give more coverage of a thwarted terror plot that would have blown up an airport in that city.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
For one, New Yorkers aren’t manipulated by terrorism as much as conservatives think they should be. Talk to a few (I have). In 2004, the people of NYC and DC voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
Secondly, you’re missing the fact that the guy couldn’t have blown up the entire city with his plan.
I agree with the people who say that sensationalizing non-stories will only encourage the madmen who crave the attention to do such things, rather than focusing on the real threat to your health - the milk industry :D
By the way, I responded to you in the previous thread on Food costs…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmOReilly said it was on page 37.
So whether it was above the fold was NOT Oreillys point.
Stupid Repuke trolls, defending a serial liar and a sexual harasser.
You Repukes disgust me. You’re a bunch of lying a$$holes.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:20 pmI don’t give a shit what O’Reilly says, I don’t like him, he is always putting me and my wife down.
The FACT is, my tool, that the New YOrk Times didn’t report the story above the fold.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Prez, if you don’t give a shit what O’Reilly saysd, why are you here on this thread, trying to poke holes in TP’s post?
Did anyone claim that the NYT reported the story above the fold? If not, who are you arguing with?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmStop trying to move the goal posts. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint was that it wasn’t there at all, and it’s been proven that it was. You lost. Deal with it.
Comment by unbelievable
He said the story was not on the front page, it was not.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmRepuke troll, you DID move the goalposts.
O’Reilly said it was on page 37. It was on page 1.
Whether it was below the fold or not is immaterial.
You trolls just can’t stop lying and spinning, can you.
Repuke Trolls are inbred redneck idiots.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmOnce again and as usual, a fart in the whirlwind.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
Comment by President Clinton
Point out or link the text where Dild O’Reilly even asserts that is even in the discussion or relevent. That is the weakest and most lame fall back deflection ever. What a dumba$$. This isn’t hannity chat idiot, there are actual critical thinkers here who see through your drivel.
How painful is your dying idealogy? It has been excruciating to us.
CHECKMATE!
Comment by Heterodoxy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Another of my stupid sheeps.
My tool, as I told the other sheep, I could give a shit what O’Reilly said, I don’t like him. In fact, I had the IRS try to find a way to arrest him during the 1990s since he was always speaking against me and my wife.
go play your partisan games with the children in the playground. I think you will find Edwards and Kerry there.
The fact, my tool, remains that the New York times didn’t report this story above the fold. If you had an ounce of brain matter, and some education, you would know that stories above the fold in a newspaper are the ones that are considered the most newsworthy.
Please, don’t get an education, don’t acquire common sense, if you do, you will stop voting for us Democrats, ok? and you know how much we love power.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmSo, the Conservatives argument boils down to “the front page is not the front page.” This certainly explains why they think we’re “winning” the war in Iraq; or that Bush is a competent leader.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThese terrorists were a joke.
They had no money and no explosives.
No credible threat.
The FBI is prosecuting a thought crime.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pmFor one, New Yorkers aren’t manipulated by terrorism as much as conservatives think they should be. Talk to a few (I have). In 2004, the people of NYC and DC voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
Secondly, you’re missing the fact that the guy couldn’t have blown up the entire city with his plan.
I agree with the people who say that sensationalizing non-stories will only encourage the madmen who crave the attention to do such things, rather than focusing on the real threat to your health - the milk industry :D
By the way, I responded to you in the previous thread on Food costs…
Comment by unbelievable
People need to be aware that there are terrorists that are trying to re-create 9/11. Whether they would have been successful is open for debate, but they should be aware. Putting it on page 37 is irresponsible.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pm64. Check this out: http://www.madcowprod.com/05182007.html
June 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI don’t give a shit what O’Reilly says, I don’t like him, he is always putting me and my wife down.
The FACT is, my tool, that the New YOrk Times didn’t report the story above the fold.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Prez, if you don’t give a shit what O’Reilly saysd, why are you here on this thread, trying to poke holes in TP’s post?
Did anyone claim that the NYT reported the story above the fold? If not, who are you arguing with?
Comment by KRank — June 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
The point remains, my tool, that the New York Times didn’t consider newsworthy enough to report it above the fold.
c’mon son, you, my sheeps, have to be smarter than what you are showing here.
Sometimes I am truly amazed at how stupid, incompetent, ridiculous and dumb you my poor sheeps are.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm“There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases,†he said. “To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia,†he said.
The New York Times on Sunday pointedly avoided giving much coverage to the alleged plot, devoting only a brief on its front page continued on the local section, despite the story breaking in the early afternoon on Saturday.
Comment by JTitor — June 5, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
It deserves repeating
June 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmFront page is front page. It make no difference WHERE an item is located.
Quit squirming.
Comment by Zooey
OReilly said that the story was not on page one, it was not. A small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmSo, the Conservatives argument boils down to “the front page is not the front page.†This certainly explains why they think we’re “winning†the war in Iraq; or that Bush is a competent leader.
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch. — June 5, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Well, much like my argument of….depending what you think the meaning of the word “is” is. and how all of you, my sycophant followers, swallowed this.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIf there was a headline and a blurb on page 1, the story was on page 1.
You trolls never cease to amaze me with your lies and spin.
Anything to protect your beloved PervOreily.
FOX had to settle Loofah Felafel’s sexual harassment lawsuit for TEN MILLION DOLLARS.
You Repuke trolls are the bottom of the barrel.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmOkay real simple.
Had O’Liely and his staff pictured the entire front page, folded out, the article regarding the alleged plot would have been visible for all to see.
But they didn’t
then they claimed the story was delegated to page 37, while all other newspapers had it listed on page 1
But it was on page 1, just cleverly covered up.
Again, they lied (and Exley is denied)
I really don’t think it can get much more clear than that
June 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmBill O’reilly uses vibrators…on himself.
That means he’s a fag, and so are the Repuke trolls defending him.
I bet they get hardons thinking about having a dildo party with him.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmPutting it on page 37 is irresponsible. — Comment by timmy
Not as irresponsible as failing to take action in protecting our borders. But, if it’s all you’ve got to point at, I guess you take what you can get.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 12/ 05/ AR2005120500097.html
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmSo obviously this wasn’t a news story, it was a Republican campaign piece. The White House is like the little boy who cried wolf and the newspapers are getting tired of being used as propaganda outlets. So they didn’t plaster it across the front page, maybe because the writer of the other article was promised that spot, and it’s all a vast liberal conspiracy depriving Repukes of their “money shot”.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmI am not moving the goal post, my sheep, I am stating a fact.
A fact that you don’t have the capacity or attention span to read anything else on teh front page which isn’t?
You think people will miss it otherwise?
LOL
that you don’t like it is something else. Deal with it.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Like has nothing to do with it. And we are dealing with you fear-mongering nutcases by pointing out your lies.
By the way - which President Clinton are you - Bill or Hillary?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm67. Comment by President Clinton — You jumped on that one a little too quick. Scares the shit out of you don’t it?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmTroll is so idiotic he can’t read the transcript.
NOWHERE does PervOreilly say “above the fold”
Typical inbred redneck Repuke troll.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmFront page is front page. It make no difference WHERE an item is located.
Quit squirming.
Comment by Zooey
WRONG! front page is NOT frong page in the newspaper business. I know this, I am the greatest President to have ever set foot on the Oval Office rug!
you are wrong, and I am right. Please go speak witha newspaper director, the lay out director, etc, etc and talk to them about the “above the fold” effect.
well, maybe not, if you become more educated you will stop voting Democrat, and we need all the Democrats that we can get, right?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmOReilly said that the story was not on page one, it was not. A small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
Comment by timmy
I apologize there was no picture, just the blurb that wasn’t even the lead into the story on page 37.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmHe said the story was not on the front page, it was not.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
How do you not see that it, quite clearly, IS on the Front page? Are you even looking at the front page to see it there? Do you have a hole in your cornea that prevents you from seeing what everyone else sees? I don’t get how you can say it isn’t there when it very obviously is.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pmIs someone going to explain to O’Lielly that the NY Times is a newspaper, not a person, it can’t “want” anything. I’m getting tired of his characterizing it as a person as if it has desires. It’s an object, not a human. And Bill Keller is a conservative, anyone who’s read his editorials knows that.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pmI am not moving the goal post, my sheep, I am stating a fact.
A fact that you don’t have the capacity or attention span to read anything else on teh front page which isn’t?
You think people will miss it otherwise?
LOL
that you don’t like it is something else. Deal with it.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Like has nothing to do with it. And we are dealing with you fear-mongering nutcases by pointing out your lies.
By the way - which President Clinton are you - Bill or Hillary?
Comment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
wow, you can’t be this stupid, can you? Please let me know, I would love more people like you to vote Democrat! yes, yes, yes!
please go speak with a newspaper, and ask them about the effect of having a story above the fold. Ask them what this means, my poorly educated sheep.
and which President am I. When did Hillary become PResident? have we had the 2008 Presidential election? really? when? education not your forte, eh?
that’s ok, your lack of education will keep on making you a loyal Dumbcrat, I love you girl, You put me in power and you brought back the do nothing Democratic Congress, whick now has lower approval ratings than our President.
thank you, our party, the Dumbcratic Party needs voters like you.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmOReilly said that the story was not on page one, it was not. A small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
Comment by timmy
So you admit it was there. Thanks.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmStill looking for your Safeway receipts, timmy?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmMaybe you put them with your Sunday NY Times…..
well, maybe not, if you become more educated you will stop voting Democrat, and we need all the Democrats that we can get, right?
Comment by President Clinton
Now you’re just twisting in the wind, PC. Ya got nothin’.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
Dream on, valiantthehater.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pm67. Comment by President Clinton — You jumped on that one a little too quick. Scares the shit out of you don’t it?
Comment by JTitor — June 5, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
scare me? hell no!! I want more of the DailyKOOKOOs hysteria and lies. This will keep us Dumbcrats in power!! I love it, I adore it when we are able to manipulate tools like you. It keeps you voting for us the Dumbcrats.
thank you JTitor, keep on believing our lies and keep on letting us manipulate you, ok?
we need more tools like you, can you please recruit more idiots like you for our party?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmWell, O’Reilly seems to have left some aspects of the story out…
http://rawstory.com/ news/ afp/ Experts_cast_doubt_on_credibility_o_06042007.html
June 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmPeople need to be aware that there are terrorists that are trying to re-create 9/11.
But you Republicans keep saying that that won’t happen because Bush is doing such an excellent job fighting them over there so we don’t fight them here.
Which is it because you can’t have it both ways.
Whether they would have been successful is open for debate, but they should be aware.
Apparently, it isn’t open for debate. As an architect, I know a bit about ‘plumbing systems’. There are things called valves and backflow preventers. They do exactly what they sound like they do. Fill your toilet with gasoline and then set it on fire. You won’t blow up your house, just char your potty. Same basic principal to what this nut was attempting to do.
Putting it on page 37 is irresponsible.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
It was on the front page.
But if we want to talk about irresponsible media, then let’s talk about all the stories the do ignore… Like, for one of many examples, the way the government is trying to scare you into supporting their fear-mongering so you’ll blindly accept their war.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmwell, maybe not, if you become more educated you will stop voting Democrat, and we need all the Democrats that we can get, right?
Comment by President Clinton
Now you’re just twisting in the wind, PC. Ya got nothin’.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
Dream on, valiantthehater.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
You think that listening to our lies makes you a better educated person?
wow, all our tricks have worked on you. My mindless drone, my tool, my sheep, I love tools like you. When will you do a Monica on me? My wife has been out on the road campaigning and Monica won’t answer the phone, will you come over and use a cigar too?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmA small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
But timmy, we already established that no paper ever puts the entire story on the front page…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmSo you admit it was there. Thanks.
Comment by Zooey
The story was not there, which is what Oreilly said.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmComment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
but we haven’t had another 9/11, doesn’t this make our enemy Bush some what successfull on the war on terror (you know the bumper sticker)? oh shit, of course not, we need to hate Bush at all cause, what am I talking about, my sheep.
sorry, I apologize.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmIt was on the front page.
But if we want to talk about irresponsible media, then let’s talk about all the stories the do ignore… Like, for one of many examples, the way the government is trying to scare you into supporting their fear-mongering so you’ll blindly accept their war.
Comment by unbelievable
The story was not on the front page- a burried blurb was. The threat of terrorism is real, whether you want to admit it or not.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pmEssentially what The Times did is treat the story like movie review — “See review of ‘Spider-Man 3′ in the “Arts & Leisure Section.â€â€˜ - Comment by Exley
If that was indeed his main point, why didn’t he just say so? Why does he find it impossible to give the full and honest depiction? Why can’t he say “I think it’s an outrage that this important headline was relegated to a below-the-fold reference to a story on page 37″?
He hated Clinton for being deceptive and “immoral”, but he is a twister of semantics like Clinton, and we know all about the falafel thing. The difference regarding the deception is that Clinton lied about personal affairs while Billdo lies about world affairs. The difference on the sex stuff is that Clinton had no trouble getting it while Billdo is just… ewwwwww.
Fair and balanced my a$$.
Shame on Exeley et al for hiding behind semantics. Why can’t you thugs face reality with some honesty and balance?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pmand the DailyKOOKOOs fools are out in force. Ah my tools, we Democratic left wingers put out propaganda for you guys, and look how you swallow it, faster than Monica swallowed my….well you know what.
how easy it is to fool the masses of the left. how easy. We Democrats have the best communication staff in the world. YES!
We need you tools, we need you my mindless masses, we need you to stay in power.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Here it is in a nutshell. The troll is throwing it in your faces - I’m looking at YOU Zooey. Yet you eat it right up and come back for more - I expect more from the real regulars here. How disappointing.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pmThe story was not there, which is what Oreilly said.
Comment by timmy
It is there.
O’Reilly lied.
You follow like a good little sheep.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:43 pmBut timmy, we already established that no paper ever puts the entire story on the front page…
Comment by unbelievable
Most stories on the front page begin with the actual story. This was not the first paragraph or a lead in.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmand which President am I. When did Hillary become PResident? have we had the 2008 Presidential election? really? when? education not your forte, eh?
It was a joke. Unclench a little already…
As for the rest of your nonsense, I’m an Independent liberal, not a Democrat.
thank you, our party, the Dumbcratic Party needs voters like you.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
At least I’m legally able to vote.
Thunder here is getting bad, I should go until it passes. Just hope we get some rain with it. The drought here is horrible…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmCan somebody past a quote that shows OReilly was lying?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmHere it is in a nutshell. The troll is throwing it in your faces - I’m looking at YOU Zooey. Yet you eat it right up and come back for more - I expect more from the real regulars here. How disappointing.
Comment by Namtillaku
Yeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmWas this story on the first page of the paper or not? Simple question with a simple answer. It was on the first page. The first page is page one. It’s not 1A it’s 1.
does the prez get that? can we gain a little focus here? Or are your slandering words too easy to spew forth from your spineless body.
It would be great to see facts and issues being discussed but PC here has a hard on with his fake persona. Delusional but comical.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmThe New York Times gave this exactly the placement it deserved. Attempted Vandalism should not be an above-the-fold, front-page story.
And if these last two “terror plots” are really the best ideas that al-Qa’ida can come up with, I feel sorry for them. “The Base” is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Seriously, guys - here are some more effective terrorist attack ideas for you - feel free to use them:
1. Get like 200 jihadis to eat asparagus and have them all pee in the Hudson river, just upstream of Manhattan, at the same time. Talk about biological warfare!
2. Get lots of co-conspirators to go through airport security carrying dozens of harmless metal objects and taking them out one at a time during endlessly repeated trips through the metal detector. The cumulative effect of all the missed flights will bankrupt the airline industry!
3. Add an extra zero to speed limit signs nationwide, and bask in terrorism glory as Americans die in droves trying to drive 350 mph in a 35 mph zone.
4. Maple syrup balloons. Highway overpasses. Convertibles. You do the math.
5. Operation Hem and Haw - terrorize coffee shops nationwide by endlessly debating the merits of skim vs. soy milk with the barista during the morning rush hour. The collective undercaffeination will bring the U.S. economy to a grinding halt!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmand the DailyKOOKOOs fools are out in force. Ah my tools, we Democratic left wingers put out propaganda for you guys, and look how you swallow it, faster than Monica swallowed my….well you know what.
how easy it is to fool the masses of the left. how easy. We Democrats have the best communication staff in the world. YES!
We need you tools, we need you my mindless masses, we need you to stay in power.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Here it is in a nutshell. The troll is throwing it in your faces - I’m looking at YOU Zooey. Yet you eat it right up and come back for more - I expect more from the real regulars here. How disappointing.
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Namtillaku, why are you trying to diminish my audience? how dare you try to take away my audience! I am the greatest President to have ever stepped on the Oval Office rug, or so my sycophant followers tell me! and you dare try to get my audience to go away?!
I will go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you if you try this again. Ask the Chinese, it wasn’t pretty what I did to them!!!
get down on your knees and kiss the feet of the greatest President ever!!! all my other left wing tools do it.
how dare you?! how dare you?!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmYeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Grow up.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmWhy did this story even warrant front page coverage? Last folks who were trying to blow up an airport were bumbling incompetents. The guys who tried to attack the army base in New Jersey were laughable. We’re still not certain what Jose Padilla was up to.
Really, “The Keystone Kops rescued a Kitten!” isn’t front page news. It’s not intended as a slight against the Kops, it’s just not news. And you know after a few press releases of “feral witches’ familiars with huge teeth and claws baying away in mighty conifers,” I don’t blame the NYT for not disrupting actual journalism for yet another press release from the Kops.
CSM article on the event — online at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p01s03-usju.html — wasn’t published until Monday and is still noticibly… short. But maybe they’re Godless commie scum, too — never can tell.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThis may be the funniest troll defense I have ever witnessed.
“Well, there was a blurb on the front page, but the story was on page 37!”
“Well, it was delegated to the lower half, so therefore it wasn’t technically on page 1″
“Really, I don’t care. O’Reilly just gets me so hot and bothered! Where’s my shower thingy?”
Reality check. Page one of the NY Times had a lead in article regarding the alleged plot.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmO’Liely and staff stated that every newspaper in NY had it on page 1, except the Times. False
end of story.
Now everyone play nice. I’m off!
#37
Why was it not the LEAD story on the front page?….for the second time.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm“…we already established that no paper ever puts the entire story on the front page.”
But, Unbelievable, when they do feel a story is worthy of front-page coverage, they DO put the lede paragraph and first few parapraphs of the story on the front page and then continue it further into the paper.
In this case, The Times appears not to have done that. It see,s they placed a “See Other Section”-type blurb on the front-page and placed the entire article, lede paragraph and all, outside the main section of the paper and in the “Metro” section.
In short, they placed none of the body of the article on the front-page. They simply referred readers to another section of the paper, as they would do with a movie review or “Lifestyle” section article.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmGood point, Toasterhead. O’REILLY is the party being IRRESPONSIBLE by blowing up a non-event into something to try to somehow show the Bush administration has some modicum of comptence.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmand which President am I. When did Hillary become PResident? have we had the 2008 Presidential election? really? when? education not your forte, eh?
It was a joke. Unclench a little already…
As for the rest of your nonsense, I’m an Independent liberal, not a Democrat.
thank you, our party, the Dumbcratic Party needs voters like you.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
At least I’m legally able to vote.
Thunder here is getting bad, I should go until it passes. Just hope we get some rain with it. The drought here is horrible…
Comment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Well, I am glad you realized that I am the only President Clinton, Hillary will be President she-man Rodham. She can’t trump my legacy and use my same last name.
How much I pray every night that she wins the election, all those fantacies that went unfulfill in the Oval Office! and all those national secrets that I need to sell to the world.
If there is a god, Hillary, will win and I will have the pleasure of using the White House as my personal playground. I did it while President, you know I’ll do it as First Lady….I mean First Fool, oopss sorry, I mean First Gentleman. (Monica thinks I am a pig though, and so does my wife and Jennifer, and Juanita) what is wrong with these women?
but the Chinese loved me, they even put up a plaque for me on their ICBMS thanking me for all the technology I gave them and wow, their women…..hot, hot, hot, hot…..they do things sexually that us Westerners can’t even imagine!! YES!!!!! man, I am getting hot under the pants just thinking about those Chinese ladies……grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmYeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Grow up.
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Exactly what is your problem?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pmYeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Grow up.
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
if either one of you grew up, you both would be conservatives. So please, DON’T grow up, ok?
for our parties sake, for our liberal ideologies sake, don’t grow up.
Namtillaku, shut up already, you are doing great harm to our cause.
I am warning you, I will go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you if you don’t shut up already.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThe more educated I become, the liberal I become.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
Comment by Zooey
This gal is the female version of Homer Simpson.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm107. Comment by President Clinton — Yep. Cutting through troll shit is a little easy these days. I wish troll-Mart would send more qualified bloggers then the idiots they’re sending now. Not sure why you haven’t been fired? If I was your handler I’d be kicking your ass to the door.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#133. shut up, dumba$$.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWhy was it not the LEAD story on the front page?….for the second time.
Comment by Tracy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Because the lead story on the front page is reserved for items of national or international importance, not stories about attempted vandalism.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmBill, what the hell are you doing in here?
I have told you time and time again to stop abusing our masses!!!!!!!
DO YOU WANT ME ELECTED OR NOT?!
Women, please let us unite, we need to get the evil men out of these blogs, they only spew point of views that are biased toward men.
right or left, men are all evil. and yes, by the way, god is a woman.
Now Bill, stop embarrassing and shut up!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pmComment by President Clinton — So, do you support George Bush?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pmWe would like to make clear that the poster who calls herself “President Clinton” is in fact a liberal who is amused at the sheep-like nature of other liberals. She is not a paid operative of our staff. Honest.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#126
Yes I think the NYT should ignore all of the these “bumbling incompetents” and just report on those plots that would have worked and potentially killed hundreds. A couple of people getting hurt or killed isn’t really worth their time.
This should be the new motto of the NYTimes: “We at the NYTimes aren’t concerned with the terrorist’s motive, just about the potential damage or death they could have caused.”
June 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmExactly what is your problem?
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
My problem is that you and the other regulars are actively helping the trolls here, by distracting people from the real issue at hand here. Arguing about where in the NYT the story resides is a red herring. The REAL issue is that these terror plots, real or not, are tools used to distract and create fear among us - away from issues that matter a LOT more. By endlessly debating this non-issue, you have become what you despise here - a troll. Give it a rest.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“President Clinton”: you are SOOO very clever, posting as if you’re the former President. That is HILARIOUS. And so clever. L-O-S-E-R.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pmWe’re really serious. The poster who calls herself “President Clinton” is not promoting the conservative cause by denigrating liberal arguments (even though that’s our favorite tactic, too).
We have been accused of planting her on this forum. The people who make such accusations are emboldening the terrorists and are the enemies of freedom.
Please further the cause of freedom by engaging “President Hillary Clinton” in debate. America thanks you.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#141. “All the news that’s fit to print.” Sort of sums it up. They printed the news, moron. It was just a minor story. When Bush fails to stop two jets from hitting the World Trade Center and a third jet from hitting the Pentagon it makes the front page.
June