NYT apologized for ACORN story, where are Doper apologies?

[Frank]

@gonzomax

In fact, that story came before the retraction. The retraction did come.

Then why in heaven’s name, in an OP entitled “NYT apologized for ACORN story, where are Doper apologies?” in which you stated, “The NYT finally printed a detraction,” did you not link to a website, blog, The New York fucking Times, or something that backed up your OP, instead of making all of us do the legwork for you?

Oh, wait, never mind, I know why.

It’s because if you had to start a fire by rubbing two of your brain cells together, one of your hands would be empty.

[The_Second_Stone]

Oh, please, they will never admit they were wrong, that is prohibited in their propaganda guide.

[gonzomax]

@Frank

Then why in heaven’s name, in an OP entitled “NYT apologized for ACORN story, where are Doper apologies?” in which you stated, “The NYT finally printed a detraction,” did you not link to a website, blog, The New York fucking Times, or something that backed up your OP, instead of making all of us do the legwork for you?

Oh, wait, never mind, I know why.

It’s because if you had to start a fire by rubbing two of your brain cells together, one of your hands would be empty.

Why do you do such stupid posts? This is a big story to those who follow politics. I suppose you don’t qualify for that. But slap yourself on your tiny little back. There is no legwork necessary if you are up on politics. None at all. Most people are well aware that the manufactured outrage of the Repubs was bogus. Directs your ego and wit there.
The thread, try and follow, was about dopers who do not confess they were wrong on the story. It was a fabrication. If you and they ,were unaware, then the story becomes about another stupid reaction from you. Did you not know that Okeefe lied.?Are you unable to understand that is the point.? You occupy a special place if you find your post relevant. Your insult was jejune at best. I expect more from you. I obviously had you over rated…

[sleeping]

@Bricker

And this merits an apology… how?

Because it *was *found to be a bill of attainder. But by the time that ruling was made, ACORN had already lost too much funding and had to shut down.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Well, not quite. You were quick to accept a version of events that casts ACORN in a bad light, to wit:

I asked for verification, “do they have this on tape”? I suggest that your inference may be just one of many such inferences that are derived from sources we have reason to be suspicious of. To say the least.

Advancing that point, I suggest that it might be illegal to turn a blind eye to child prostitution, that if such evidence existed, it might likely be acted upon. Or course, it only could be acted upon by a prosecutor willing to take on the huge liberal machine in the courageous pursuit of truth.

Now, if BrickerEsq is correct, and a failure to report such is not illegal, then the further proof I was seeking is moot. My point would remain, but unsupported by that particular inference.

Be that as it may, aiding, abetting, or otherwise condoning prostitution by minors is an act I personally consider revolting and heinous. I expect my position has popular support. Hence, adding that to the list of purported vileness by the evil minions of ACORN is pretty strong stuff and I expect that you could fully support such an inference with evidence. Is that too much to ask?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. The only thing I was “quick to accept” was the official position of the NYT. I hear they are a somewhat reputable rag, but if they report the facts to be otherwise, I’ll be happy to retract anything I said based on their reporting.

[Frank]

@gonzomax

This is a big story to those who follow politics. I suppose you don’t qualify for that.

Course not, I don’t follow politics at all. Just ask anyone.

There is no legwork necessary if you are up on politics.

In post #9 of this thread, I mentioned that the article you linked in your OP said nothing about a retraction, a correction, or an apology. That was absolutely correct. I actually found the link to the NYT correction from a Google result that eventually led me to a page on Huffington that has not (that I’ve noticed, could be wrong) been linked to here. How is that not doing my own legwork? (By the way, elucidator, that was a nice piece of sarcasm immediately following. Very accurate.)

The thread, try and follow, was about dopers who do not confess they were wrong on the story. It was a fabrication. If you and they ,were unaware, then the story becomes about another stupid reaction from you. Did you not know that Okeefe lied.?Are you unable to understand that is the point.? You occupy a special place if you find your post relevant. Your insult was jejune at best. I expect more from you. I obviously had you over rated…

None of this is my point. My point is that you are a fucking moron. How do you expect to prove to the right that The New York Times has apologized or detracted the story without linking to the fucking correction? No, you attempt to prove it my linking to a story which states that the ombudsman for the Times is defending the story. You’re an embarrasment to the left. You should not expect more from me as I have thought for years that you’re an imbecile. Just ask anyone.

[Frank]

@Bricker

And this merits an apology… how?

I was . . . I was wr . . . I was wrooooo . . . I was rrrr . . . I was . . .

. . . My assumption that the law was not a bill of attainder, was, in view of the judgement recently passed by a court of law, perhaps not as accurate as I would have liked it to be.

[Mr.Moto]

My opinion on ACORN was not solely based on the incident in question, and my posts were generally moderate in tone. So just speaking for myself, I don’t feel that I need to account for much.

[Michael_Ellis]

@Shodan

I see, gonzo, that you have not spent your month off in deep introspection.

Regards,
Shodan

You’re a worthless ass.

[elucidator]

@Mr.Moto

My opinion on ACORN was not solely based on the incident in question, and my posts were generally moderate in tone. So just speaking for myself, I don’t feel that I need to account for much.

I thought that the part where you suggested that their testicles be torn with red-hot pincers a bit over the top. Maybe thats just me.

[magellan01]

@gonzomax

Why do you do such stupid posts?

Oh, the irony. Too good.

[Bricker]

@Frank

I was . . . I was wr . . . I was wrooooo . . . I was rrrr . . . I was . . .

. . . My assumption that the law was not a bill of attainder, was, in view of the judgement recently passed by a court of law, perhaps not as accurate as I would have liked it to be.

Ahh, OK. I gotcha.

Well, on that matter, I’ll wait until the decision survives an appeal. Right now, we have one district court judge, a Clinton appointee who seems squarely in the “Living Constitution / figure out what results I want and THEN adopt an analytical method to get me there” camp, who has agreed it’s a bill of attainder. The government has appealed, and the injunction issued by Judge Gershon is stayed pending that appeal. So it hardly seems like a settled issue just yet – does it?

If the circuit court uphold’s Gershon’s ruling, I’ll absolutely apologize and admit error.

And if in fact an appeals court goes the other way… will the participants advancing the other side be asked to provide an apology and a concession of error?

[Shodan]

@Michael_Ellis

You’re a worthless ass.

It must have taken you hours to come up with that.

Better luck next time.

Regards,
Shodan

[emacknight]

@Bricker

And if in fact an appeals court goes the other way… will the participants advancing the other side be asked to provide an apology and a concession of error?

No, I plan to wait for it to be appealed to what ever the next level is, State Supreme Court? SCOTUS?

And if it fails that I plan to declare the judges to be activist, Bush appointees, that have been instructed by their handlers to see this ends badly for Obama…

[Steve_MB]

@John_Mace

But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context.

Cite that this conclusion was based on a viewing of the unedited video?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

the “Living Constitution / figure out what results I want and THEN adopt an analytical method to get me there” camp

Which differs from the “Figure out what results I want and THEN adopt a way to pretend that’s what the text must actually mean” camp that you favor in what way? In that it takes justice, the actual primary purpose of the Constitution (as its own text says), into account, perhaps?

Don’t flatter yourself about your claim to intellectual honesty.

[Steve_MB]

@Evil_One

From what I understand from Mr. Moto, the NYT guy has looked at the raw video. I can see Breitbart letting a news organization look at it, but not release it to the general public.

Nope. They’ve been caught in fakery once; anything other than a full release of the original recordings for forensic analysis must be presumed to be merely Edit 2.0.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Ahh, OK. I gotcha.

Well, on that matter, I’ll wait until the decision survives an appeal. Right now, we have one district court judge, a Clinton appointee who seems squarely in the “Living Constitution / figure out what results I want and THEN adopt an analytical method to get me there” camp, who has agreed it’s a bill of attainder. The government has appealed, and the injunction issued by Judge Gershon is stayed pending that appeal. So it hardly seems like a settled issue just yet – does it?

If the circuit court uphold’s Gershon’s ruling, I’ll absolutely apologize and admit error.

And if in fact an appeals court goes the other way… will the participants advancing the other side be asked to provide an apology and a concession of error?

If your aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

[Steve_MB]

@elucidator

“In exchange for immunity from prosecution”, eh?

They should have made sure to have something to trade for that before their little stunt with the Congressional office phones… :rolleyes:

[Morgyn]

@Steve_MB

They should have made sure to have something to trade for that before their little stunt with the Congressional office phones… :rolleyes:

Wouldn’t have helped. The immunity is in CA, the phone stunt was LA. That’s a whole 9 letters away.

SteveMB, the raw, unedited footage for the tapes made in California is available on the California Attorney General’s site. I linked to it a few posts back.