Originally Posted By Darkbeer First from a New York Times Editorial from October 25th, 2008 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26sun2.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...un2.html</a> >>In its closing months, the Bush administration is pulling out all the stops in its eight-year effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act. In mid-August, the administration proposed two dangerous regulatory changes. One would free the government from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on polar bears and other imperiled wildlife."<< And now from a New York Times Editoral from May 13th, 2009 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13wed3.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...ed3.html</a> >>"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has upheld a Bush administration finding that the Endangered Species Act is not a suitable tool for restricting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threatening the polar bear and its habitat. We agree, with this codicil: . . ."<< Amazing, so whay is the exact some policy bad when it was the Bush Administration, but a good idea if its from the Obama Administration... And folks claim the New York Times isn't bias....
Originally Posted By DAR The New York Times hasn't been worth the paper it's printed on for years. One reason as to why newspapers are dying in this country.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Of course, you clipped right before the "codicil": >>We agree, with this codicil: There are steps Mr. Salazar can and must take under the act — steps that the Bush White House would not — to protect the bear.<< And from the first oped: >>We are confident that both Barack Obama and John McCain would be more sensitive to environmental matters. The unfortunate part is that while it has taken only months for Mr. Bush and Mr. Kempthorne to weaken important protections, it could take years for the next president to restore them.<< Why do you do that? Why would you omit the key sentence from the articles that makes this thread's premise wobbly? Really, no one here is dumb enough to take your WE stuff at face value anymore, yet you keep attempting this one-sided propaganda stuff. It's insulting that you think people are that dumb.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Why do you do that? Why would you omit the key sentence from the articles that makes this thread's premise wobbly?<< Not just wobbly, but completely invalid. How disingenuous can you get. But let's get real, he heard about this on Drudge or some other right-wing site, then just copy and pasted without actually reading what the Times said.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What the heck is a "codicil"?> A word Darkbeer was hoping we didn't know the meaning of.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper You know what would solve this? Nobody open Darkbeer's posts anymore. Seriously, just don't open them. If folks stopped commeting on them perhaps he would just give up.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Yes by all means, ignore anyone that disagrees with you. Or at the very least, throw stones.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It isn't about him disagreeing with folks. It is that he posts these misleading stories REGULARLY without backing anything up or even addressing the questions or criticisms of those who might question the content of the stories. He doesn't have an original thought. I'm a conservative and I will debated back and forth on issues that mean something to me. I'm all for that type of dialogue. What he does is just kind of sad and certainly makes me and other conservatives look bad. So, I say ignore the behavior and it will pass.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>It is that he posts these misleading stories REGULARLY without backing anything up or even addressing the questions or criticisms of those who might question the content of the stories.<<< Oh. I didn't uh know that part. And hush mele! Look who's talking about looking at who's talking. kidding.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Darkbeer's post wasn't misleading. The Times clearly has a double standard.
