Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Anonymous New York Times OPED

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    The NYT is part of DS and hostile to Trump;Slim is part of DS and hostile to Trump .
    If the NYT had $250 million in 2011 to pay back Slim , it would have had $ 250 million in 2008 and would not be forced to bow for the demands of Slim .
    The NYT had not that money in 2011 :
    The Wall Street Journal of July 14 2011 (other DS journal ):

    Russell Adams : ''Last autumn the company said it wanted to pay back the loan by January 2012. Times Co subsequently raised $ 225 million through a DEBT OFFERING it said would help the company pay back Mr Slim .''
    The alternative is that in the autumn of 2011 ,some one told the board of administration : it was not necessary to borrow $ 250 million at an interest of 14% from Slim, we have an account of $250 million in Panama, but this was only mentioned in our black secret account and we forgot it . IF the NYT had $250 million idle money in cash in 2011, why would it need to borrow $ 250 million at 14 % in 2008 ?
    About the demands from Slim:The NYT was forced to sell to Slim 15 millionshares at a piece of their market value,which costed the NYT $ 135 million .
    Market value :$15,22 ,they were sold at $ 6,36 .
    The NYT was desperate .
    You are losing it!

    You bring information from wayyy back when we were in the middle of the crisis. This is obvious from your quotes ''Last autumn the company said it wanted to pay back the loan by January 2012." REALLY? So you bring quotes wayyy before 2012 to argue about the NYT situation now?
    You must be desperate to talk about the situation in the middle of the aftermath of the financial crisis when no bank was willing to give any loan.

    Meanwhile, you did not address my observation based on recent financial statements!

    Debts in 2014 of the NYT: $650 million!
    Debts of the NYT in 2017 : $ 250 million

    These are facts as it is also a fact that stock price has gone up consistently all this time!

    It is obvious that based on numbers such as those above, the market does not agree with your assessment that the company is heading to insolvency. Nor do they see that the company refinances its debt by getting other loans.

    As for the first part of your post, the link of NYT to the Mexican businessman is not based on anything. You just try to connect them by saying that they both are hostile to Trump and therefore they are both part of the Deep State. I say that the link between Russian trolls and you is wayyyyy more stronger because both of you criticize the NYT and talk about the Deep State.
    Last edited by pamak; 10 Sep 18, 11:58.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • Certain elements of the MSM have been running a dis-information campaign against Trump since day one of his presidency. This just looks like another fictional piece of trash.

      If you are running a 'secret resistance operation' in the Whitehouse, why would you tell the world about it?

      Did the Communists who infiltrated the State Department back in the 30s-40s-50s tell the world about it?
      {}

      "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
        Certain elements of the MSM have been running a dis-information campaign against Trump since day one of his presidency. This just looks like another fictional piece of trash.

        If you are running a 'secret resistance operation' in the Whitehouse, why would you tell the world about it?

        Did the Communists who infiltrated the State Department back in the 30s-40s-50s tell the world about it?
        You never know! It may be Pence eying the presidency or some Goldman Sachs republicans within the administration (and there are many) want to take Trump down because they see that they cannot control anymore the trade agenda. Or it may have come from people who exited the administration and simply want revenge. In other words, there are explanations for such behavior.
        Last edited by pamak; 10 Sep 18, 11:47.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
          Certain elements of the MSM have been running a dis-information campaign against Trump since day one of his presidency. This just looks like another fictional piece of trash.

          If you are running a 'secret resistance operation' in the Whitehouse, why would you tell the world about it?

          Did the Communists who infiltrated the State Department back in the 30s-40s-50s tell the world about it?
          Well, there is the alternative: The writer wanted to create resistance by publishing the piece. That is, there is no "resistance" except for the writer and maybe a few like-minded others who are powerless to do anything. So, they run this piece to create havoc within the administration that doesn't already exist. This is a very common ploy in disinformation campaigns.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by III Corps View Post
            I am beginning to consider we've all been trolled by the NYT.
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • My thesis totally proven. The NYT should not have published this as it just unleashes wild conspiracy theories as documented here.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                You are losing it!

                You bring information from wayyy back when we were in the middle of the crisis. This is obvious from your quotes ''Last autumn the company said it wanted to pay back the loan by January 2012." REALLY? So you bring quotes wayyy before 2012 to argue about the NYT situation now?
                You must be desperate to talk about the situation in the middle of the aftermath of the financial crisis when no bank was willing to give any loan.

                Meanwhile, you did not address my observation based on recent financial statements!

                Debts in 2014 of the NYT: $650 million!
                Debts of the NYT in 2017 : $ 250 million

                These are facts as it is also a fact that stock price has gone up consistently all this time!

                It is obvious that based on numbers such as those above, the market does not agree with your assessment that the company is heading to insolvency. Nor do they see that the company refinances its debt by getting other loans.

                As for the first part of your post, the link of NYT to the Mexican businessman is not based on anything. You just try to connect them by saying that they both are hostile to Trump and therefore they are both part of the Deep State. I say that the link between Russian trolls and you is wayyyyy more stronger because both of you criticize the NYT and talk about the Deep State.
                A marxist who is invoking the market as help .
                Carlos Slim is the Mexican Soros : both want the US to open its borders for the Mexican invasion which will desstabilise the US .
                In 2007 Slim (the man who saved the NYT ) said : 'what is needed in the US is legal immigration,immigration accords, but not one just for highly qualified people . '' Thus , what this Mexican demanded from the US was that they would let enter everyone.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                  My thesis totally proven. The NYT should not have published this as it just unleashes wild conspiracy theories as documented here.
                  Wild conspiracy theories is the normal business in today politics. They were unleashed the moment Woodward first mentioned the issue of resistance in the WH and published stories highly critical of Trump. I do not see the NYT brining more damage by publishing this story.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    Back in Nero's day actors were viewed as lower than wh*res, yet the princeps was known to not only cavort with thespians, but he'd also take the stage himself, which utterly scandalized Rome. By comparison, we've not only endured multiple administrations who've wh*red themselves in pursuit of celebrity endorsements, but the latest came to national prominence thanks to a form of popular entertainment which clearly panders to the most intellectually and morally challenged segment of the citizenry. How's that for a comparison?
                    LoL, very good. Of course there's the Steele Dossier, but I'm not sure we could go into the lurid parallel details on a family-oriented forum like this one, where everyone tries to be good and kind to each other.

                    Plus as your earlier example nicely showed with Marius and Sulla, we're at that parallel point where plebeians and patricians (read dems and reps, or poor and rich), just couldn't agree and eventually required an Imperial system to break the deadlock.

                    There was an awful lot of backstabbing (Triumvirate++) in the process, nicely though less bloodily paralleled with the various tomes that have been released (Comey, Wolff, Omarosa, Woodward, Anonymous Op-Ed), though none of these- so far- has struck a fatal blow. Without something like an 'Et tu Pence' moment, the Trump Presidency could be in for death by a 1000 cuts.... Or a re-election in 2020 and the repeal of the 22nd Amendment...
                    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      Wild conspiracy theories is the normal business in today politics. They were unleashed the moment Woodward first mentioned the issue of resistance in the WH and published stories highly critical of Trump. I do not see the NYT brining more damage by publishing this story.
                      I disagree. Woodward corroborates with several sources and investigates the accusations. This is a single source accusation that the public has no means to assess if it is coming from a disgruntled bureaucrat, or an organized conspiracy to take over the government or it's a widespread opinion within cabinet. Moreover, it really isn't news as such things have already been reported on.

                      Comment


                      • Woodward also tapes his interviews.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post

                          I disagree. Woodward corroborates with several sources and investigates the accusations. This is a single source accusation that the public has no means to assess if it is coming from a disgruntled bureaucrat, or an organized conspiracy to take over the government or it's a widespread opinion within cabinet. Moreover, it really isn't news as such things have already been reported on.
                          Which sources?
                          He gives names, like Mattis, but from what I understand (and I cannot be sure since I have not got the book yet), we do not know if he got such information directly from such sources (say Mattis) or if he got them from assistants which will make them second-hand sources! And considering that everybody denies that he said the things Woodward writes in his book, I do not see how the public can investigate such accusations. In the end, a lot depends on how much somebody trusts Woodward as a journalist. In essence, the same thing is related to the NYT.

                          You have a valid point that the NYT just uses a single source (since it is an op-ed and not investigative journalism), but on the other hand, if you trust their credibility then it is also important that this is not just any source within the administration. It is a "senior official" who speaks (writes) for himself. Anyway, as I said, without having Woodward's book I cannot be sure. So, my stance regarding his work is for the time being a result of the first impressions I got from scant comments about his book. One thing though is firm and nobody can deny it! This is the recording between Woodward and Trump which certainly supports Woodward's credibility!
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Which sources?
                            He gives names, like Mattis, but from what I understand (and I cannot be sure since I have not got the book yet), we do not know if he got such information directly from such sources (say Mattis) or if he got them from assistants which will make them second-hand sources! And considering that everybody denies that he said the things Woodward writes in his book, I do not see how the public can investigate such accusations. In the end, a lot depends on how much somebody trusts Woodward as a journalist. In essence, the same thing is related to the NYT.

                            You have a valid point that the NYT just uses a single source (since it is an op-ed and not investigative journalism), but on the other hand, if you trust their credibility then it is also important that this is not just any source within the administration. It is a "senior official" who speaks (writes) for himself. Anyway, as I said, without having Woodward's book I cannot be sure. So, my stance regarding his work is for the time being a result of the first impressions I got from scant comments about his book. One thing though is firm and nobody can deny it! This is the recording between Woodward and Trump which certainly supports Woodward's credibility!
                            Good post. I agree with you, my beef is that the NYT violated their own journalistic standards by publishing the OP-ED. They have established their credibility because they are suppose to be relied on not to violate their own journalistic standards. For what? Not much. The basic story is already out there, it isn't news. I suppose that it's possible, maybe likely, that the person that wrote it is of such high importance that they felt it should not be withheld.That wouldn't justify it though because it sets off wild speculation, conspiracy theories, establishes a basis for thinking that appointed officials are disobeying duly elected officials, possible coup attempt, possible 25th amendment actions and an unnecessary whodunit mystery.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X