Iraq 'surge' working, Petraeus tells Congress

[militarymuscle69]

You're misstating the facts.  The Democrats have a thin majority.  They don't have enough votes to override a presidential veto and few if any republicans have the stones to cross party lines on these votes. 

You are not basing your argument on fact.  You employ every irrelevant propaganda ploy you can to make your emotionally-based point that democrats are gutless, 'do-anything, say-anything' cowards just interested in hanging on to power. 

First you misstate the facts about congressional voting/presidential veto power then you engage in mindreading the motives of the democrats.  That's not debate, that's propaganda.

I'm not about to engage in an argument about this, but if you believe that a democratic president would end this war you are going to be as dissapointed as I was when I thought republicans would take care of gay marriage and immigration....ain't happening son

[Decker]

I'm not about to engage in an argument about this, but if you believe that a democratic president would end this war you are going to be as dissapointed as I was when I thought republicans would take care of gay marriage and immigration....ain't happening son

If the president were Kucinich or Richards then the war would end abruptly.  I believe that Edwards is coming around to that conclusion himself.  The rest are Bush clones.  They want to use that SuperBase the US has built in the Iraqi Greenzone for years to come.

[militarymuscle69]

If the president were Kucinich or Richards then the war would end abruptly.  I believe that Edwards is coming around to that conclusion himself.  The rest are Bush clones.  They want to use that SuperBase the US has built in the Iraqi Greenzone for years to come.

Thank god (yes I said god) people realize what quacks Kucinich and Richards are....Doesn't is speak volumes to you that the only 2 people you thikn would end the war of the support of 1-2% of the US? hmmmmm

[Decker]

Thank god (yes I said god) people realize what quacks Kucinich and Richards are....Doesn't is speak volumes to you that the only 2 people you thikn would end the war of the support of 1-2% of the US? hmmmmm

No it doesn't speak volumes to me b/c the president had near unanimous support for the Patriot Act and for invading Iraq (granted this consensus was built on the Bush Adm lies and manipulation of data) and in those instances the consensus was dead wrong.

Ron Paul wants an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The reason that there is violence in Iraq, which is bleeding over its borders, is b/c of the US's illegal presence in the country.

We are fighting Iraqis: either Shia or Sunni depending on the context.

[Colossus_500]

Didn't think this needed a thread of it's own, so I thought I'd put this article from the NYPost here:

TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD
By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

September 13, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.

Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the "family discount."

"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."

[Dos Equis]

Didn't think this needed a thread of it's own, so I thought I'd put this article from the NYPost here:

TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD
By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

September 13, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.

Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the "family discount."

"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."

Not surprising.   

[Decker]

Not surprising.   

Yes, the liberal NY Times which:

supported the Afghanistan invasion,

supported the 2003 Iraq invasion,

gave a national stage to the White House conduit of WMD misinformation named Judith Miller,

Sat on the FISA story until after the 2004 election

Supported Nafta, [A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business.]

Praised in its review of the Ann Coulter book "Slander",

Perpetuated the Clinton WhiteWater Hoax

In fact, Perpetuated any Bullshit Clinton "scandal" that the republicans could manufacture

During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies.  http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
________________________ ________________________ _____________

[Dos Equis]

Yes, the liberal NY Times which:

supported the Afghanistan invasion,

supported the 2003 Iraq invasion,

gave a national stage to the White House conduit of WMD misinformation named Judith Miller,

Sat on the FISA story until after the 2004 election

Supported Nafta, [A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business.]

Praised in its review of the Ann Coulter book "Slander",

Perpetuated the Clinton WhiteWater Hoax

In fact, Perpetuated any Bullshit Clinton "scandal" that the republicans could manufacture

During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies.  http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
________________________ ________________________ _____________

And then they gave lefties a hefty discount for a "betray us" ad.  Why?

[Straw Man]

And then they gave lefties a hefty discount for a "betray us" ad.  Why?

there could be many reasons - first the random quotes given over the phone could be wrong.  They could have negotioted a lower price with the promise of future business.
The person selling the space could have offered the lower price in order to fill the order.

etc..

NY Times is running a business and they can sell their product for whatever price they want

[ieffinhatecardio]

Interesting that people are more interested in the price of an ad rather than the veracity of the ad's claims.

[Decker]

And then they gave lefties a hefty discount for a "betray us" ad.  Why?

I don't know if that's even the case.

But as Straw Man pointed out, you don't know the facts.  You just assume facts fixed to your prejudice.