The NYT is at it again

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10163
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Skeeve » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:42 am

shuize wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:47 pm
ed wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:42 pm
shuize wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:28 pm
I can go both ways
Noted
Remember, under the new standard it's not consent if you don't call back.
This part is telling
...
Sex makes me feel unsafe, not because of the act itself but because my partners so often disappear afterward, whether I waited hours or months before the first time.
Well two things come to mind....

1 After all the shit the guys have to go through, most of them decide that "the juice ain't worth the squeeze."

2 Women are bitching about guys "ghosting" them, when they have been doing it to men for years, probably since the dawn of time....

Remember ladies, Feminism is all about equality, right?
You have wanted equality for decades, right?

Well fucking enjoy it!
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70284
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3029 times
Been thanked: 1134 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:47 am

Sexual freedom is "free" in the same sense an unregulated free market is "free".
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 21930
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 373 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by gnome » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:12 am

Bunch of jumpy folks here. Someone says wouldn't it be nice if people hooking up respected each other's feelings more than just making sure of their consent for that physical encounter, and suddenly the alarm bells are ringing that rape has been universally redefined to include not calling back.

Yeah, that would be insane and people should disagree with it, but I think this rates somewhere around "The War On Christmas" as threat level.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10163
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Skeeve » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:14 am

gnome wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:12 am
Bunch of jumpy folks here. Someone says wouldn't it be nice if people hooking up respected each other's feelings more than just making sure of their consent for that physical encounter, and suddenly the alarm bells are ringing that rape has been universally redefined to include not calling back.

Yeah, that would be insane and people should disagree with it, but I think this rates somewhere around "The War On Christmas" as threat level.
The use of the word "consent" is what seems to be ringing the alarms IMHO, YMMV.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70284
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3029 times
Been thanked: 1134 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:28 am

gnome wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:12 am
Yeah, that would be insane and people should disagree with it, but I think this rates somewhere around "The War On Christmas" as threat level.
The perennial peril :o

But it seems new to me that a woman would write of her casual hook ups and get it published as an NYT op-ed.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10163
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Skeeve » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:22 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:28 am
gnome wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:12 am
Yeah, that would be insane and people should disagree with it, but I think this rates somewhere around "The War On Christmas" as threat level.
The perennial peril :o

But it seems new to me that a woman would write of her casual hook ups and get it published as an NYT op-ed.
That too!

This female has been "dating" for over a decade, and apparently the guys she chose to have sex with by and large, dumped her afterwards.
This goes in with "All the news thats Fit to Print?"
Seriously?
Then Skank Of America could start in...

Surprise
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:33 am

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Surprise » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:34 am

Pence believes the NYT.
INVESTIGATING 'ANONYMOUS': President Trump's top officials on Sunday said the anonymous senior White House aide who allegedly wrote the infamous New York Times op-ed last week should leave the administration and that an investigation could be needed ... "If they are that senior administration official -- they're violating an oath, not to the president, but to the Constitution," Vice President Mike Pence told "FOX News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace. "Look, it's un-American. And I think that's why you've seen Republicans and Democrats condemn this."

President Trump, Pence said, was concerned about the national security implications of the op-ed. "To have someone who literally celebrates coming in every day to frustrate the agenda that the president and I were elected to advance -- it really is an assault on our democracy," he said. Pence added that he would be willing to take a lie-detector test to prove he was not behind the op-ed.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/10/fo ... n-now.html

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10163
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Skeeve » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:09 pm

Seems as if Bob (worse than Watergate) Woodward "wouldn't have used it."

Woodward on Anonymous NYT Op-Ed: 'I Wouldn’t Have Used It'
Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward said this morning that staffers are able to whisk papers off the president's desk -- out of fear that some signed documents would create a national security crisis -- because Donald Trump doesn't remember they were there in the first place.

"If it’s not on his desk, if it’s not immediately available for action, it goes away," Woodward said in his first media appearance talking about his new book, Fear: Trump in the White House, to be released Tuesday.

Woodward asserted on CBS Sunday Morning that "people who work for him are worried -- that he will sign things or give orders that threaten the national security or financial security of the country or the world."

In the eight other presidential administrations Woodward has covered, he said he has "have never heard of people on the staff in the White House engaging in that kind of extreme action."
...
But he said he has "no idea" which "senior administration official" wrote last week's anonymous New York Times op-ed stating that some within the White House are actively working to stop Trump from acting out on certain impulses.
What ever...
:Popcorn:
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 21930
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 373 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by gnome » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:35 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:28 am
gnome wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:12 am
Yeah, that would be insane and people should disagree with it, but I think this rates somewhere around "The War On Christmas" as threat level.
The perennial peril :o

But it seems new to me that a woman would write of her casual hook ups and get it published as an NYT op-ed.
It reads like a parable more than an actual recounting of something that happened. As for why it deserved the space, who can say? Maybe she knows someone that knows someone.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70284
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3029 times
Been thanked: 1134 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:09 pm

gnome wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:35 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:28 am
gnome wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:12 am
Yeah, that would be insane and people should disagree with it, but I think this rates somewhere around "The War On Christmas" as threat level.
The perennial peril :o

But it seems new to me that a woman would write of her casual hook ups and get it published as an NYT op-ed.
It reads like a parable more than an actual recounting of something that happened. As for why it deserved the space, who can say? Maybe she knows someone that knows someone.
Maybe.

But it's a piece that 30 years ago would have been in Cosmo, not an NYT Op-Ed.

It tells more about the NYT than about the author.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 21930
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 373 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by gnome » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:14 pm

Are they usually better?
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70284
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3029 times
Been thanked: 1134 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:34 pm

gnome wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:14 pm
Are they usually better?
They used not to have soft core porn opposite the editorial page.

Whether or not this is an improvement, it is a noticeable change.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

shuize
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by shuize » Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:16 pm

Ghosting is not cool. Got it. But “Consent for sex but not ghosting” sounds a lot like “Will you still respect me in the morning?” repackaged in millennial language.

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10163
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Skeeve » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:22 pm

White House Asks Justice Department to Investigate Times Op-Ed
The White House has asked the Justice Department to consider identifying and prosecuting the author of an anonymous New York Times op-ed that described a cabal of Trump aides who seek to thwart parts of the president’s agenda, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday.

She declined to say whether the White House believes the author of the op-ed, published Wednesday, committed a crime. It would be “problematic” if the author had participated in meetings on national security issues, she said.
Is this really a surprise?
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1359 times
Been thanked: 1148 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Anaxagoras » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:27 am

Skeeve wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:22 pm
White House Asks Justice Department to Investigate Times Op-Ed
The White House has asked the Justice Department to consider identifying and prosecuting the author of an anonymous New York Times op-ed that described a cabal of Trump aides who seek to thwart parts of the president’s agenda, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday.

She declined to say whether the White House believes the author of the op-ed, published Wednesday, committed a crime. It would be “problematic” if the author had participated in meetings on national security issues, she said.
Is this really a surprise?
No. Should we be surprised?

Assuming it's all true, is there an actual identifiable crime here to be investigated? Generally speaking, before you can have a criminal investigation, you should identify a possible crime that has been committed. I don't see one here, unless someone can name one. Did the Op-Ed contain any classified information? Is it illegal to badmouth the president? What exactly is the crime here?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8579
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by xouper » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:21 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:27 am
. . . What exactly is the crime here?
I too would like to see that explained. I don't know. I am not a lawyer.

This is not just about badmouthing the president, which is protected under the First Amendment. The op-ed clearly admits to actively subverting the policies and actions of the President, and by extension, also subverting the will of the voters.

As I understand it, it is a federal crime to violate the federal oath of office, including (presumably) the oath taken by the person who wrote that op-ed.

Regarding the actions admitted to in that op-ed, have they violated their oath of office? Are they interfering with issues of national security?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1359 times
Been thanked: 1148 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Anaxagoras » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:48 am

xouper wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:21 am
Anaxagoras wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:27 am
. . . What exactly is the crime here?
I too would like to see that explained. I don't know. I am not a lawyer.

This is not just about badmouthing the president, which is protected under the First Amendment. The op-ed clearly admits to actively subverting the policies and actions of the President, and by extension, also subverting the will of the voters.

As I understand it, it is a federal crime to violate the federal oath of office, including (presumably) the oath taken by the person who wrote that op-ed.

Regarding the actions admitted to in that op-ed, have they violated their oath of office? Are they interfering with issues of national security?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know
Here's the oath of office:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)
The oath is basically to "support and defend the Constitution" and to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office". Could an argument be made that the individual is not "well and faithfully discharging the duties of the office"? I think it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (meaning it would be a subjective judgment, not an objective one).
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67061
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3317 times
Been thanked: 2093 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Doctor X » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:04 am

Intentionally thwarting the will a branch of government seems pretty clear.

Would you accept it if it was Congress or the Supreme Court who was thwarted, Anax?

"Received No Buck-o-Five" ===> :freedom:

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
2

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1359 times
Been thanked: 1148 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Anaxagoras » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:08 am

Doctor X wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:04 am
Intentionally thwarting the will a branch of government seems pretty clear.

Would you accept it if it was Congress or the Supreme Court who was thwarted, Anax?

"Received No Buck-o-Five" ===> :freedom:

--J.D.
I have no doubt that it would be grounds for firing. The question is, is it a crime?

AFAIK, there is no crime called "thwarting the will of a branch of government".
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67061
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3317 times
Been thanked: 2093 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Doctor X » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:38 am

You just broke your Oath.

You thwarted the Constitution.

Image

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
2