Comments on: If New York Times Were Around in 1775

By: Wayne

Wayne — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:00:43 +0000

Cernig
You were the one trying to be slick. The NYT isnâ??t against the Bush administration just because they are in charge of the geographical area of New England. If he were a Dem the NYT would be supporting him. If the NYT didnâ??t like Washington then they would do all they could to hurt him even it hurt the cause, which was the birth of the U.S. That a problem with the Libs is they donâ??t align themselves to U.S. but to the International Community and will hurt the U.S. to prove it. The U.S. does try to be fair even when it hurts us at times but we shouldnâ??t forget to look after ourselves especially since no one else will unless they can get benefits from it.

By: Herb

Herb — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:16:03 +0000

Pug:

Stick it or shove it, whatever you chose

By: Pug

Pug — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 02:00:04 +0000

Cernig apologizes for being a troll, which he isn't. His points, while not conservative, are civilly stated and, to this fellow traveller, well reasoned and good natured.

Herb, on the other hand, should apologize. The porn thing was uncivil and unfunny. It's the kind of thing one would expect to find in much less respectable precincts.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:07:08 +0000

The mock-up has a certain amusing quality to it, but underscores the remarkable over-reaction of some on this SWIFT/NYT business: where in that article was there anything analogous to publishing information like this? It is patently silly and all of these mock-ups (like the Malkin WWII posters) make the NYT article out to be something that it patently was not.

By: Conservative Culture » Independence Plot exposed by NY Times

Conservative Culture » Independence Plot exposed by NY Times — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:58:08 +0000

[...] Perhaps one of the best 4th of July headlines I have ever seen. The message is clear and very pointed. A question we often ask ourselves. What would have happened with past events if the MSM (main stream media) of today was there then. [...]

By: Cernig

Cernig — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:22:54 +0000

Steve, That just goes to show how closed minded you liberals are. So close minded that everywhere else on the planet, from India onward it was the liberals who opposed the British Empire and eventually brought independence. It was always the conservatives who were in tight with the Colonial power and were loyal to the status quo. Have a look back without blinkers - it was the same in America. Regards, Cernig

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:18:53 +0000

The NYT would be the worlds leading publisher of hard core "PORN" if they thought they could get away with it by using the "freedom of the Press" excuse. No doubt that Keller has a secret desire to be the worlds biggest PORN STAR. After all, he to is a "Bastard of America"

By: Kenny

Kenny — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:03:00 +0000

Actually ... the Times may very well have had this sentiment. While the patriots controlled the land of the colonies there were quite a few Loyalists (remember them from history class?) and by 1776 (when the British controlled the city) they were largely refugees in from other areas. In fact, one year (to the day) from the date of this fictional paper, local government officials are supplying the British ships still in the harbor. If memory serves, General Washington and his contemporaries generally viewed NYC as a place deserving of their contempt for reasons of morality. See McCullough.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 04:03:33 +0000

I think its impossible to read the words of those thinkers or of the Founders and come away with the impression that they would have approved of Bushâ??s political philosophy or of his â??ends justify the meansâ?? method of government. Just saying you are a patriot or believe in freedom and liberty doesnâ??t make it so - actions determine the truth or falsity of your claims.

That just goes to show how closed minded you liberals are. Now, we close minded conservatives have no problem thinking that the founding fathers would agree with Bush's administration. How are dead people going to argue with me. Even if they wrote papers that disagree with some of Bush's decisions or policies how can you assume that all of them would disagree with him now? These are different times. And I don't mean just more modern, I mean different. Many Democrats voted to fund the war in Iraq and then changed their minds because the times are different. How can you assume that the Founding Fathers might not change their minds in today's circumstances. Or maybe your interpretation of their writings is wrong and they would agree with Bush even now? Steve

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 04:02:52 +0000

James, I apologize if it seems as if Iâ??ve become a bit of a resident troll here recently We liberal OTB trolls need the help, sir. Welcome to our odious brotherhood.! (Actually, I don't think either of us is a troll, but I guess it depends on the definition. To me, a troll hijacks *everything* into "Bush is evil" or "Clinton did it too" or whatever.)

By: Cernig

Cernig — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:25:33 +0000

The NYT would have printed it since they are anti-American pro European not just anti-administration. I think that's called "moving the goalposts". The thrust of the current militant right's criticism of the NYT has all been about their "Bush-hating". I've certainly not seen an anti-American pro-European bias in their work although I will agree they are anti-Bush administration (and rightly so, in my view). Actually, as a free-thinking Enlightenment Scotsman I would have been all for the rebels - I wrote a post last 4th July about how jealous I am of your Independence Day, and even more so now that I live in the US. We Scots knew all too well what its like to be occupied by the English and had to put up with it for a lot longer. Look up the Highland Clearances sometime. Maybe that's why most of the thinkers and precedents that the Founders based America on were Scots. I think its impossible to read the words of those thinkers or of the Founders and come away with the impression that they would have approved of Bush's political philosophy or of his "ends justify the means" method of government. Just saying you are a patriot or believe in freedom and liberty doesn't make it so - actions determine the truth or falsity of your claims. If you really want that speculative front page to be realistic it should be headed "New York Post". Regards, Cernig P.S. James, I apologize if it seems as if I've become a bit of a resident troll here recently. I simply find your blog one of the more rational conservative sites and it stimulates my thinking to hear counterarguments that are sanely stated, even where they may be utterly wrong.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:35:55 +0000

Cernig

The NYT would have printed it since they are anti-American pro European not just anti-administration.
Sound like you would have been for King George as well and not for our founding fathers. Remember not everyone that lived in the colonies supported the revolution. Just living in the U.S. doesnâ??t make one a Patriot. It is oneâ??s action that make him or her a Patriot.

By: Cernig

Cernig — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:09:51 +0000

Of course, the administration in 1775 was the British occupation so the NYT would never have printed this. It would have printed the BRIT signals! As such it would have been hailed by all patriotic rebels and denounced as treasonous by the administration and its sympathizers.

So the Powerline crew would STILL have been cheerleading for a King George, it seems.

Someone needed to do a bit more thinking after they dreamed this one up, eh? The phrase "hoist by their own petard" comes to mind.

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

By: cirby

cirby — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:07:25 +0000

Since PowerLine just spent the weekend pretending that garden-variety real-estate porn was a plot to assassinate the Vice President and Secretary of Defense,

Actually, they said exactly the opposite. From the Power Line article:

I didn't write anything about the article initially, because, frankly, it strikes me as over-the-top to believe that even the Times wants Rumsfeld and Cheney assassinated.

You might want to start reading some of the stuff you reference, instead of just parrroting what you read somewhere else.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:38:20 +0000

Since PowerLine just spent the weekend pretending that garden-variety real-estate porn was a plot to assassinate the Vice President and Secretary of Defense, the laughs from this gag are pointing in the wrong direction.