Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   New York Times, last week: "Sen. Larry Craig has got to go." This week: "Gosh, that nasty ol' GOP sure was quick to keelhaul poor Larry Craig"   (nytimes.com) divider line
63
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

532 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2007 at 5:59 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



63 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
EdMon
2007-09-04 3:56:54 PM  
Its all politics.

Idaho gov is a Republican so he is able to name a Republican successor. Compare to the Louisiana senator where no Republican wanted him to resign because the Democrat gov'r would name a Democrat successor.


Same thing would have happened if the parties were reversed.


Worthless opinion article
 
floor9
2007-09-04 4:10:23 PM  
Opinion articles really *are* supposed to take opposing stances, <b>submittard</b>. It's not some vast media conspiracy.
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2007-09-04 4:14:18 PM  
floor9: Opinion articles really *are* supposed to take opposing stances, <b>submittard</b>. It's not some vast media conspiracy.

Oh my god, you're one of them....
 
Calmamity
2007-09-04 4:30:45 PM  
It's an editorial, moron.
 
Mordant
2007-09-04 5:30:23 PM  
The important thing here is that submitter is a tragic victim.

of genetics.
 
DaSwankOne
2007-09-04 5:37:49 PM  
Hypocrisy from the liberal media? Say it ain’t so.
 
Lunatic Crossing
2007-09-04 6:05:34 PM  
Calmamity: It's an editorial, moron.

You expect people who worship the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly to know the difference between editorials and news?
 
flavor of the month
2007-09-04 6:09:09 PM  
where is the "craig has got to go" editorial?
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-09-04 6:10:40 PM  
floor9: Opinion articles really *are* supposed to take opposing stances

Gee. Usually when people argue with themselves you call it schizophrenia, not opinions.
 
mobombhead
2007-09-04 6:13:13 PM  
It's the NYT. They are torn between their love of fags and their hatred of republicans.
 
Ace Frehley's Ghost
2007-09-04 6:15:54 PM  
Lunatic Crossing: Calmamity: It's an editorial, moron.

You expect people who worship the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly to know the difference between editorials fantasy and news reality?
 
Craptastic
2007-09-04 6:19:01 PM  
Larry Craig is a gay homosexual who voted for every anti-gay-rights legislation that he saw. He also solicited gay homosexual illegal sex from a cop in a public restroom and got caught, resulting in his resignation from the US Senate.

OK. Now that we've gotten THAT cleared up, perhaps the thread can continue.
 
Atillathepun
2007-09-04 6:19:51 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: floor9: Opinion articles really *are* supposed to take opposing stances

Gee. Usually when people argue with themselves you call it schizophrenia, not opinions.

And only one person writes for the NYT. . .

/It's not Fair and Balanced unless the message is unchanging and unwavering and orated by a single angry voice!
 
FuriousGeorge945
2007-09-04 6:21:01 PM  
Craptastic: Larry Craig is a gay homosexual who voted for every anti-gay-rights legislation that he saw. He also solicited gay homosexual illegal sex from a cop in a public restroom and got caught, resulting in his resignation from the US Senate.

OK. Now that we've gotten THAT cleared up, perhaps the thread can continue.

As opposed to all those straight homosexuals...
 
Thrag
2007-09-04 6:24:01 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Gee. Usually when people argue with themselves you call it schizophrenia, not opinions.

What's the name of the disorder where a person can't differentiate between an individual human being and a newspaper?
 
flavor of the month
2007-09-04 6:24:24 PM  
a cursory search of the NY Times archives shows:

- This op-ed (dated August 31, which is last week, not this week.)
- one op-ed criticizing the practice of bathroom sex stings
- one op-ed about a gay sex scandal in Boise 50 years ago
- one not free column that appears to say Craig is not a role model but also has a b-b-but clinton in the first sentence.


so this op-ed, sympathetic to Craig, actually appeared last week and there is no pro-resignation op-ed. thanks shrubmitter. i had to waste a lot of time on this.
 
Ace Frehley's Ghost
2007-09-04 6:28:16 PM  
Thrag: MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Gee. Usually when people argue with themselves you call it schizophrenia, not opinions.

What's the name of the disorder where a person can't differentiate between an individual human being and a newspaper?

neo-connicus farkii

/went to the Wiley Coyote School for Sciencey Things
 
carmody
2007-09-04 6:30:09 PM  
submitter is unfamiliar with journalism, I see.

The opinion piece laid out the case for Craig leaving office in disgrace. This is opinion.

The news piece reported on the swift reprisals against Craig from within his own party. This is news.

The two are not connected, nor do they somehow contradict one another. One is opinion, the other is news. Sadly, the two have been conflated by corporate-media bombastards like O'Hannity, Savage-Wiener and the like.
 
flaEsq
2007-09-04 6:32:08 PM  
New York Times, last week: "Sen. Larry Craig has got to go."

Link, please

MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Gee. Usually when people argue with themselves you call it schizophrenia, not opinions.

Submitter?
 
Ace Frehley's Ghost
2007-09-04 6:34:16 PM  
carmody: submitter is unfamiliar with journalism, I see.

The opinion piece laid out the case for Craig leaving office in disgrace. This is opinion.

The news piece reported on the swift reprisals against Craig from within his own party. This is news.

The two are not connected, nor do they somehow contradict one another. One is opinion, the other is news. Sadly, the two have been conflated by corporate-media bombastards like O'Hannity, Savage-Wiener and the like.

Now wait a minute...

I realize that I may be a bit slow on the uptake after having that second lobotomy so that I could vote for Dubya again in 2004, but let me get this straight: you're saying that everything that FoxNEWS airs isn't.... news? Some of it is... opinion? Unsubstatianted by fact?

Nope... Next you'll be telling me that Iraq didn't plan the 9/11 hijackings...
 
MajorQ_Q'er
2007-09-04 6:35:09 PM  
carmody: submitter is unfamiliar with journalism, I see.

The opinion piece laid out the case for Craig leaving office in disgrace. This is opinion.

The news piece reported on the swift reprisals against Craig from within his own party. This is news.

The two are not connected, nor do they somehow contradict one another. One is opinion, the other is news. Sadly, the two have been conflated by corporate-media bombastards like O'Hannity, Savage-Wiener and the like.

If you did not have your head shoved so far up your ass and actually spent time looking into your statements before posting them you would know that Hannity and O'Reilly both consider themselves talk show hosts as opposed to journalists as does Savage. Quit being such a farking idiot already.
 
Craptastic
2007-09-04 6:42:41 PM  
MajorQ_Q'er: If you did not have your head shoved so far up your ass and actually spent time looking into your statements before posting them you would know that Hannity and O'Reilly both consider themselves talk show hosts as opposed to journalists as does Savage. Quit being such a farking idiot already.

Hmmm. I've listened to Hannity's radio show a few times, and he loves to point out that he's a "journalist". I don't remember the exact quote, but he touts himself as the most reliable name in journalism, or some such B.S.

So, are you lying or have you never listened to him on the radio? Those are the only two options, by the way.
 
S_P_I_K_E
2007-09-04 6:45:22 PM  
FuriousGeorge945: Craptastic: Larry Craig is a gay homosexual who voted for every anti-gay-rights legislation that he saw. He also solicited gay homosexual illegal sex from a cop in a public restroom and got caught, resulting in his resignation from the US Senate.

OK. Now that we've gotten THAT cleared up, perhaps the thread can continue.

As opposed to all those straight homosexuals...

or the unhappy ones?

Spike
 
Ace Frehley's Ghost
2007-09-04 6:47:24 PM  
MajorQ_Q'er: carmody: submitter is unfamiliar with journalism, I see.

The opinion piece laid out the case for Craig leaving office in disgrace. This is opinion.

The news piece reported on the swift reprisals against Craig from within his own party. This is news.

The two are not connected, nor do they somehow contradict one another. One is opinion, the other is news. Sadly, the two have been conflated by corporate-media bombastards like O'Hannity, Savage-Wiener and the like.

If you did not have your head shoved so far up your ass and actually spent time looking into your statements before posting them you would know that Hannity and O'Reilly both consider themselves talk show hosts as opposed to journalists as does Savage. Quit being such a farking idiot already.

So I'm confused now... One person writes the whole New York Times?
 
Thorndyke Barnhard
2007-09-04 6:48:14 PM  
Atillathepun: And only one person writes for the NYT. . .

/It's not Fair and Balanced unless the message is unchanging and unwavering and orated by a single angry voice!

Came in here to say the same thing.
 
EdNortonsTwin
2007-09-04 6:48:14 PM  
I say we pool our funds and send Larry Craig a nice dress.
 
flaEsq
2007-09-04 6:51:31 PM  
DaSwankOne: Hypocrisy from the liberal media? Say it ain't so.

Ahhh, looks like the headline is phony and the NY Times didn't advocate Craig leaving. Lies and bullsh*t from Republicans? img.fark.net
 
Lunatic Crossing
2007-09-04 6:52:40 PM  
Ace Frehley's Ghost: So I'm confused now... One person writes the whole New York Times?

Okay, I admit it. I'm The New York Times. Sorry for sending mixed signals, guys.

/now I gotta get back to work, these 48-hour workdays are killin' me!
 
Atillathepun
2007-09-04 7:00:22 PM  
Lunatic Crossing: Okay, I admit it. I'm The New York Times. Sorry for sending mixed signals, guys.

(Stands and steps forward) No! I am the New York Times!

/hopefully not too obscure
 
Thrag
2007-09-04 7:01:58 PM  
No, I am Tony Curtis, I mean the New York Times.
 
BlackPete
2007-09-04 7:06:55 PM  
Most of the article was filler except for the last paragraph:

Underlying the hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Senator Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness. But it also betrays their political uneasiness as the next election approaches.

So yeah... I have nothing to add to that except maybe "This."
 
Atillathepun
2007-09-04 7:10:31 PM  
Thrag: No, I am Tony Curtis, I mean the New York Times.

(pssst, Curtis was in the movie, but Kirk Douglas played the titular role.)
 
Your Faith is Creepy
2007-09-04 7:11:26 PM  
K.ROVICUS: Do you eat oysters?

L.CRAIGUS: When I have them, master.

K.ROVICUS: Do you eat snails?

L.CRAIGUS: No, master.

K.ROVICUS: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?

L.CRAIGUS: No, master.

K.ROVICUS: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?

L.CRAIGUS: Yes, master.

K.ROVICUS: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.

L.CRAIGUS: It could be argued so, master.

K.ROVICUS: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters.
 
MajorQ_Q'er
2007-09-04 7:13:27 PM  
Craptastic: MajorQ_Q'er: If you did not have your head shoved so far up your ass and actually spent time looking into your statements before posting them you would know that Hannity and O'Reilly both consider themselves talk show hosts as opposed to journalists as does Savage. Quit being such a farking idiot already.

Hmmm. I've listened to Hannity's radio show a few times, and he loves to point out that he's a "journalist". I don't remember the exact quote, but he touts himself as the most reliable name in journalism, or some such B.S.

So, are you lying or have you never listened to him on the radio? Those are the only two options, by the way.

Thanks for the idiotic reply. I listen to Hanniy quite often and watch his television show. In fact, on a road trip last week he mentioned that he is far from a journalist but only a talk show host. Nice try dipshiat.
 
MajorQ_Q'er
2007-09-04 7:15:45 PM  
flaEsq: DaSwankOne: Hypocrisy from the liberal media? Say it ain't so.

Ahhh, looks like the headline is phony and the NY Times didn't advocate Craig leaving. Lies and bullsh*t from Republicans?

Of course they did not advocate that, they need to pander to homosexuals.
 
vdantev
2007-09-04 7:19:09 PM  
So is this about the politics involved or about the media reaction to the politics involved? If it's the latter, then fark needs to invent a new section for just media in general.
 
flavor of the month
2007-09-04 7:25:31 PM  
MajorQ_Q'er : pander to homosexuals


they're not pandering to homosexuals! they just have a wide stance!
 
The Why Not Guy
2007-09-04 7:28:14 PM  
My memory isn't what it used to be, but unfortunately for Republicans I can still remember last week. It wasn't Democrats calling for Craig to resign... it was your own.

Democrats may have been cackling at the sight of a hypocrite exposed - I certainly was - and we may have taken an unseemly amount of pleasure in seeing Republicans saddled with yet another sex scandal. Again, I plead guilty.

But when it came to calling for Craig to step down? Sorry GOPers, that wasn't the New York Times. That was you.
 
Thrag
2007-09-04 7:38:05 PM  
Atillathepun: (pssst, Curtis was in the movie, but Kirk Douglas played the titular role.)

Yes, I know. Tony was one of first the people to get up and claim to be Sparticus.
 
Kaeishiwaza
2007-09-04 7:50:15 PM  
Well I might not work for the NYT, but I do read it. Frankly I don't recall an op-ed piece calling for his ouster. IIRC, that ruckus was coming Fox and Friends, etc.

There are misleading and flamebaiting headlines, sure. But really, do you simply have to make shiat up, now?
 
Alien Robot
2007-09-04 7:54:06 PM  
Thrag: Yes, I know. Tony was one of first the people to get up and claim to be Sparticus.

Useless without a linky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F07q5CR0HOc
 
Atillathepun
2007-09-04 8:06:54 PM  
Alien Robot: Thrag: Yes, I know. Tony was one of first the people to get up and claim to be Sparticus.

Useless without a linky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F07q5CR0HOc

I'm Brian and so is my wife.
 
Craptastic
2007-09-04 8:26:52 PM  
MajorQ_Q'er: Thanks for the idiotic reply. I listen to Hanniy quite often and watch his television show. In fact, on a road trip last week he mentioned that he is far from a journalist but only a talk show host. Nice try dipshiat.

That was a nice rant and everything, but you didn't answer my question. Does Hannity refer to himself as a "journalist" on his radio show or not?

I've heard him do it, so I already know the answer. You can either admit it, or admit that your previous puking post was a lie.
 
Craptastic
2007-09-04 8:29:54 PM  
MajorQ_Q'er: Thanks for the idiotic reply. I listen to Hanniy quite often and watch his television show. In fact, on a road trip last week he mentioned that he is far from a journalist but only a talk show host. Nice try dipshiat.

Oh. And nice self-pwnage, by the way, genius.
 
Poopspasm
2007-09-04 8:50:08 PM  
MajorQ_Q'er: Thanks for the idiotic reply. I listen to Hanniy quite often and watch his television show. In fact, on a road trip last week he mentioned that he is far from a journalist but only a talk show host. Nice try dipshiat.

*points, laughs*
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-09-04 8:58:13 PM  
Ace Frehley's Ghost: So I'm confused now... One person writes the whole New York Times?

I don't have a dog in this hunt other than to point this out:

The reason the article has no byline is because it's a staff editorial. That means it's (allegedly) a description of the paper's official position on the issue at hand.

Nothing wrong and everything healthy about a paper's individual writers disagreeing in op-eds; a smart editor will even run them right next to each other as a point/counterpoint (USA Today does this almost every day).

But this isn't a matter of two different op-eds by two different people. The editorial board is supposed to represent the paper's official position on something, as I just said. If paper, therefore takes Position X on an issue in a staff editorial, then contradicts itself and takes Position Y in another, it's contradicting itself every bit as incoherently as if a single writer did the same thing, or if some company's spokesman said "This is our position" one day and then another spokesman said "Nuh-uh, THIS is our company's position."

Whether NYT actually advocated for Craig to resign is apparently up for grabs here. But I've noticed them getting all schizo like this before on other issues. The editorial board needs to get its act together and start paying attention to what they're actually saying from day to day.
 
Mr. Xhin
2007-09-04 9:09:21 PM  
Time for Larry to tap out.
 
Ex Parte Gilligan
2007-09-04 9:29:52 PM  
count me as another wondering where and when the NYTimes called for Craig's resignation. Unless and until I see that one, I'll presume both submitter and the admins are lying, sniveling biatches.
 
chascarrillo
2007-09-04 9:30:24 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Whether NYT actually advocated for Craig to resign is apparently up for grabs here.

No, it's not. The NYT never published an editorial calling for Craig to resign.
 
The Why Not Guy
2007-09-04 9:46:03 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Whether NYT actually advocated for Craig to resign is apparently up for grabs here.

I'd say it's an important point, seeing as your accusation of contradiction as well as this thread in general hinge on whether or not the NYT did in fact advocate for Craig to resign.

You want to have it both ways. You want to condemn the Times for contradicting itself but when proof is required suddenly it's all "gosh, gee, none of us know for sure." The Times either called for Craig to resign, or they didn't. Which is it?
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want more news before we break it? Try

TotalFark

See what's behind the green door
and help keep the tap flowing

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.