As a former or present military person can you with a clear conscience read such a scandalous anti-American and anti -Military paper like the NY Times?
I would like to see a complete boycott of this crap sheet.
Agree or disagree.
Thank you for your service and Have a great Veteran's Day.
2007-11-10 02:59:40 · 12 answers · asked by Nvr2soon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
To categorize the NY Times as "liberal" or "Jew" serves no purpose than to promote hate and discontent.
As has been pointed out, we have a concept of "freedom of the press." However, that poster seems to have overlooked the fact that freedom does not equate to license. Just because one has a freedom does not mean they have the right to abuse it.
I have the right to have a weapon. But I don't have the right to use it irresponsibly. I, for example, am not allowed to use it to settle disputes with my neighbors... or my family... or my teachers.
I also am supposed to have "freedom of religion." But if my religion included offering human sacrifices, I'm sure the authorities would move to curtail the practice of my religion.
I have "freedom of assembly." That doesn't mean I can riot, destroy property, or to even block traffic.
My "freedom of speech" is also governed by laws against libel and slander, and against breach of national security.
Just so, "freedom of the press" is also governed by certain standards. But the media seem to flaunt those standards. One WWII Admiral wrote that the press (media) seems to be convinced that there are four branches of the Federal Government; Executive, Legislative, Judicial, the Press. The first three are subject to checks and balances.
The NY Times... any media source... needs to behave responsibly. If it cannot, or if it chooses not to do so, it needs to be censured.
Anti-war and anti-military protests, anti-war and anti-military speech and demonstration, while may appear to be covered by "free speech," "freedom of assembly," and "free press," are, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
In times past, the enemy would capture and torture soldiers in an effort to make anti-military, anti-war, anti-government statements, or to otherwise speak against their country. Many of these soldiers died rather than make those statements. The enemy no longer hast to bother capturing and torturing soldiers. The protesters and politicians make the statements all the time.
In Iraq, the insurgents don't have to work to rally popular support. The protesters, the politicians, and the media do it all for them.
But the protesters, etc. whine, "What about my freedom of (whatever)?" You can make your voice heard. Write to your representatives. If an elected representative received 500,000 letters expressing a point of view, you can bet he or she would act on it. If every representative received 500,000 letters expressing the same point of view, changes would be made. But you need to make your voice heard by those who are in a position to make a difference. Getting a few people with nothing better to do than sit at the computer and who share your view to post agreement is useless. Angering those with nothing better to do than sit at the computer and who disagree with you merely moves them to express their opposing opinion. If they do so to their representative.. as I am wont to do... your efforts are counterproductive.
People buy tabloids, and think the nonsense is real. People buy the NY Times for the same reason. It's not against the law to be a moron. If it were... almost every politician in the US would be in prison.
2007-11-10 03:50:50 · answer #1 · answered by gugliamo00 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Did they get them mixed up? For example did Harry swoop into the sky on an F-18 fighter? Did the Marines kick down a door in Baghdad and , with aggression, wave their wands around ?
2016-04-03 05:38:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Happy birthday to the Marine Corps - November 10.
The NY Times is a liberal left-wing newspaper controlled by an editorial board with a prominent Jewish agenda.
Every newspaper has an agenda and a point of view. Once you understand what the source is, you can evaluate the news they present. The NY Times is still a valuable source of information in many areas - but you need to know thebias before you start reading.
2007-11-10 03:04:14 · answer #3 · answered by Uncle John 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
totally agree with you, I have on occasion read it if its left lying on a train seat on my commute home (days I take the train) and really to confim that it is indeed still a looney left anti US newspaper and YEP it still is. I am comforted by the fact that I see far more NY Post left on train seats and indeed see far more people reading that than the ny times.
2007-11-10 03:23:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'll occasionally read it if it's just laying around... just for a laugh at the audacity of how thin the truth can be stretched before it's put in print. I'll never contribute a dime to it though.
And what's this... "our troops" BS? ahem, i think the question was OBVIOUSLY directed AT troops. Not feel good, support-the-troops-but-not the war-and-the way-i'm-going to support-the-troops-today is by-giving-an-opinion on their-behalf...
2007-11-10 03:43:45 · answer #5 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Beautifully said!!
TOTALLY AGREE
OIF 2003
US Army 15 years
2007-11-10 10:38:19 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The New York Times is part of the free press that is part of what any person in the military is supposed to be defending--namely their right to say what they wish.
If you don't like it--or agree with them, tha'ts your privelege. But to try to smear them as "anti-American" because you don't happen to agree with their views is an act that is truely anti-American--and no one who is a patriotic American will support such an attitude. This is a free country--that's the whole point of what our troops are fighting for.
2007-11-10 03:06:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 7⤋
you don't like it, don't buy it.
it's called freedom of speech and freedom of choice.
me, i think the times remains the paper of record and among the best in the world.
i also think that the times was right there in the run up to the phony war in iraq and shares the guilt to this day for the start of that unnecesary quagmire.
2007-11-10 03:20:00 · answer #8 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
1. N O!!
2. AGREE!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME!!
US ARMY(RETIRED) 1958 - 1979
2007-11-10 07:42:56 · answer #9 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the new your times is owned by the fox news group. so how can you call them liberal? i really haven't seen any liberal media. being all the media is owned by the corporate right, but i take it you haven't heard of free speech.
2007-11-10 03:28:01 · answer #10 · answered by akadave 3 · 0⤊ 6⤋