Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[jmmengel]

Dateline, NYC, 10/27/2024

Jews Flock To MSG Trump Rally  Hillary Calls Nazi Rally

[Hairy Lime]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

LOL

Except you cannot understand that Bezos is the Ultimate publisher of  the Post no matter how he fashions the structure of his empire.

This is how it works. The man who pays the bills is the man who makes the calls.

So what was the point of this:

Two of the most liberal newspapers  in the country,  the LA Times and the Washington Post decline to endorse a Presidential preference.
Discuss.

If you knew it was NOT the liberal editorial board but their right wing overseers that made the call?

[Oilcandide]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

Yes, but the troll has to say it, as if he somehow scored a point and "won" a debate.  This is to save face after showing his ignorance that publisher, as a formal title, IS IN FACT a specific position at a newspaper.  The New York Times is owned by the NYT Company, and its Chairman of the Board is formally the publisher.  The Omaha World Herald, by contrast, is owned by Lee Enterprises, a large media conglomerate, while Chase Rankin is its publisher, actually running the operations of the paper. 

Katherine Graham, another example, was both owner (after her husband's death) and publisher of WaPo from 1969 to 1979, but then was the chair of the board and CEO up to 1991.  Donald Graham was publisher after 1979. 

[jmmengel]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

LOL

Except you cannot understand that Bezos is the Ultimate publisher of  the Post no matter how he fashions the structure of his empire.

This is how it works. The man who pays the bills is the man who makes the calls.

So what was the point of this:

Two of the most liberal newspapers  in the country,  the LA Times and the Washington Post decline to endorse a Presidential preference.
Discuss.

If you knew it was NOT the liberal editorial board but their right wing overseers that made the call?

Right wing overseers?

[jmmengel]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

Yes, but the troll has to say it, as if he somehow scored a point and "won" a debate.  This is to save face after showing his ignorance that publisher, as a formal title, IS IN FACT a specific position at a newspaper. 

No it is not.

The New York Times is owned by the NYT Company, and its Chairman of the Board is formally the publisher.  The Omaha World Herald, by contrast, is owned by Lee Enterprises, a large media conglomerate, while Chase Rankin is its publisher, actually running the operations of the paper. 

Katherine Graham, another example, was both owner (after her husband's death) and publisher of WaPo from 1969 to 1979, but then was the chair of the board and CEO up to 1991.  Donald Graham was publisher after 1979.

Thanks for making my point.

[facilitatorn]

Red, we saw you bow to the superior erudition of Yank several pages ago. You agreed your original point held no water and that your follow ups were idiotic as everyone here clearly saw.

Now it just seems you are mad at yourself for being a dumbass.

The best that can be said about your recent work is that it shows the kind of backward thinking that allows republicans to vote against their own interests and sabotage their wellbeing time and time again.

[facilitatorn]

http://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/guest-commentary-a-republican-mayors-unexpected-presidential-vote/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=guest-commentary-a-republican-mayors-unexpected-presidential-vote

Another republican who thinks better than Red does.

[LarryBnDC]

What we witnessed on Friday was not a case of censorship or a failure of the media. It had nothing to do with journalism or the Washington Post. It was something much, much more consequential. It was about oligarchy, the rule of law, and the failure of the democratic order.

When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trumps opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.


https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bezos-trump-and-the-failure-of-democracy?publication_id=87281&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=bkki&utm_medium=email

[facilitatorn]

What we witnessed on Friday was not a case of censorship or a failure of the media. It had nothing to do with journalism or the Washington Post. It was something much, much more consequential. It was about oligarchy, the rule of law, and the failure of the democratic order.

When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trumps opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.


https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bezos-trump-and-the-failure-of-democracy?publication_id=87281&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=bkki&utm_medium=email

The trump guys are not going to like losing by five points or roughly ten million votes.

[LarryBnDC]

What we witnessed on Friday was not a case of censorship or a failure of the media. It had nothing to do with journalism or the Washington Post. It was something much, much more consequential. It was about oligarchy, the rule of law, and the failure of the democratic order.

When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trumps opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.


https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bezos-trump-and-the-failure-of-democracy?publication_id=87281&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=bkki&utm_medium=email

The trump guys are not going to like losing by five points or roughly ten million votes.

[Hairy Lime]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

LOL

Except you cannot understand that Bezos is the Ultimate publisher of  the Post no matter how he fashions the structure of his empire.

This is how it works. The man who pays the bills is the man who makes the calls.

So what was the point of this:

Two of the most liberal newspapers  in the country,  the LA Times and the Washington Post decline to endorse a Presidential preference.
Discuss.

If you knew it was NOT the liberal editorial board but their right wing overseers that made the call?

Right wing overseers?

However you want to describe it. You emphasized the two as "liberal newspapers" withholding their endorsement as part of your "the ship is leaking" take on Harris. Yankguy properly pointed out that the facts belied your narrative; it was not the newspaper editorial board expressing doubts about Harris but rather a decision imposed by ownership. At which point you abandoned the point you tried to make to argue the owners had the right to do what they did, a point no one had disagreed with. That is contradicted point of raising the question in the first 0lace did not concern you because you are an intellectually dishonest PROVEN LIAR.

[jmmengel]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

LOL

Except you cannot understand that Bezos is the Ultimate publisher of  the Post no matter how he fashions the structure of his empire.

This is how it works. The man who pays the bills is the man who makes the calls.

So what was the point of this:

Two of the most liberal newspapers  in the country,  the LA Times and the Washington Post decline to endorse a Presidential preference.
Discuss.

If you knew it was NOT the liberal editorial board but their right wing overseers that made the call?

Right wing overseers?

However you want to describe it. You emphasized the two as "liberal newspapers" withholding their endorsement as part of your "the ship is leaking" take on Harris. Yankguy properly pointed out that the facts belied your narrative; it was not the newspaper editorial board expressing doubts about Harris but rather a decision imposed by ownership. At which point you abandoned the point you tried to make to argue the owners had the right to do what they did, a point no one had disagreed with. That is contradicted point of raising the question in the first 0lace did not concern you because you are an intellectually dishonest PROVEN LIAR.

If Harris loses maybe you could get a job with her writing word salads .

[Hairy Lime]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

LOL

Except you cannot understand that Bezos is the Ultimate publisher of  the Post no matter how he fashions the structure of his empire.

This is how it works. The man who pays the bills is the man who makes the calls.

So what was the point of this:

Two of the most liberal newspapers  in the country,  the LA Times and the Washington Post decline to endorse a Presidential preference.
Discuss.

If you knew it was NOT the liberal editorial board but their right wing overseers that made the call?

Right wing overseers?

However you want to describe it. You emphasized the two as "liberal newspapers" withholding their endorsement as part of your "the ship is leaking" take on Harris. Yankguy properly pointed out that the facts belied your narrative; it was not the newspaper editorial board expressing doubts about Harris but rather a decision imposed by ownership. At which point you abandoned the point you tried to make to argue the owners had the right to do what they did, a point no one had disagreed with. That is contradicted point of raising the question in the first 0lace did not concern you because you are an intellectually dishonest PROVEN LIAR.

If Harris loses maybe you could get a job with her writing word salads .

Covfefe. Once again, your lie about not supporting Trump might fool someone if you did not assiduously parrot every single one of his talking points, not matter how ridiculous.

[jmmengel]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

LOL

Except you cannot understand that Bezos is the Ultimate publisher of  the Post no matter how he fashions the structure of his empire.

This is how it works. The man who pays the bills is the man who makes the calls.

So what was the point of this:

Two of the most liberal newspapers  in the country,  the LA Times and the Washington Post decline to endorse a Presidential preference.
Discuss.

If you knew it was NOT the liberal editorial board but their right wing overseers that made the call?

Right wing overseers?

However you want to describe it. You emphasized the two as "liberal newspapers" withholding their endorsement as part of your "the ship is leaking" take on Harris. Yankguy properly pointed out that the facts belied your narrative; it was not the newspaper editorial board expressing doubts about Harris but rather a decision imposed by ownership. At which point you abandoned the point you tried to make to argue the owners had the right to do what they did, a point no one had disagreed with. That is contradicted point of raising the question in the first 0lace did not concern you because you are an intellectually dishonest PROVEN LIAR.

If Harris loses maybe you could get a job with her writing word salads .

Covfefe. Once again, your lie about not supporting Trump might fool someone if you did not assiduously parrot every single one of his talking points, not matter how ridiculous.

You seem to think that not voting for Trump disqualifies me from criticizing Harris.
The two are not comparable.
Trump speaks ill of the Republican Party which disqualifies him from my vote.
Harris is an embarrassment to our political system in addition to being stupid.

[Hairy Lime]

But just remember Lewis had nothing to do with the Post Decision to stop endorsing Presidential Candidates. That was made by Jeff Bezos who is his Boss and owner.

That's what I've been saying all along.

LOL

Except you cannot understand that Bezos is the Ultimate publisher of  the Post no matter how he fashions the structure of his empire.

This is how it works. The man who pays the bills is the man who makes the calls.

So what was the point of this:

Two of the most liberal newspapers  in the country,  the LA Times and the Washington Post decline to endorse a Presidential preference.
Discuss.

If you knew it was NOT the liberal editorial board but their right wing overseers that made the call?

Right wing overseers?

However you want to describe it. You emphasized the two as "liberal newspapers" withholding their endorsement as part of your "the ship is leaking" take on Harris. Yankguy properly pointed out that the facts belied your narrative; it was not the newspaper editorial board expressing doubts about Harris but rather a decision imposed by ownership. At which point you abandoned the point you tried to make to argue the owners had the right to do what they did, a point no one had disagreed with. That is contradicted point of raising the question in the first 0lace did not concern you because you are an intellectually dishonest PROVEN LIAR.

If Harris loses maybe you could get a job with her writing word salads .

Covfefe. Once again, your lie about not supporting Trump might fool someone if you did not assiduously parrot every single one of his talking points, not matter how ridiculous.

You seem to think that not voting for Trump disqualifies me from criticizing Harris.
The two are not comparable.
Trump speaks ill of the Republican Party which disqualifies him from my vote.
Harris is an embarrassment to our political system in addition to being stupid.

Once again, your lie about not supporting Trump might fool someone if you did not assiduously amd sycophantically parrot every single one of his talking points, not matter how obviously wrong and ridiculous.