Why is O’Reilly concerned? If the NYT is as irrelevant as he says, the NYT could have pictures of nymphs mating with dolphins and no one would notice.

I didn’t care for the New York Times giving up intelligence secrets, thus reducing its effectiveness, during the Bu$h years and I don’t like during Obama’$ regime. Such actions put peoples lives at risk.

The Times doesn’t really care about putting lives in danger; if they did they would not be publishing secret information. It makes me laugh how the left went berserk for the reveal of Val Plame (by Armitage) and had hissy fits galore (even though she was not a covert agent) and yet have no problems when the Times reveals secret information. The NYTimes is the enemedia.

The Times is only concerned with the lives of it’s reporters…otherwise, they have no interest in the lives they endanger by their so-called reporting. I absolutely loathe and despise this rag of a paper.

Whatever happened to freedom of press, guys?

Frances,
Using the word MORAL in regards to the present state of “journalism” in this country is quite a stretch indeed.

The Real Royal King says:
May 26, 2010 at 8:13 am
Why is O’Reilly concerned? If the NYT is as irrelevant as he says, the NYT could have pictures of nymphs mating with dolphins and no one would notice.

Hey king, you could use your own logic when it comes to your Beck, Palin, and Fox derangement.

TRL:
“Whatever happen to freedom of the press guys?”

No one, at least not me, is asking to infringe on the 1st Amendment. I’m simply just pointing out the reality. The reality is they are putting peoples live at risk. The New York Times is potentially getting people killed, although in an indirect manner. In my view, as I’m practicing my 1st Amendment right, the New York Times is a defacto accomplice to aiding extremist organizations. But hey, it’s their right.

Of course the NYT is hurting America. They are liberals aren’t they? The hate America first crowd always hurt America, that is their mission in life. Just look at RRK’s comments, he is clueless.

JUST ANOTHER ACT OF DEADLY TREASON

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/just_another_act_of_deadly_treason_wuz3iFD6YbSQilIzOHHDUM

gordonbloyershow says:
May 26, 2010 at 9:46 am
Well he must be given that the king of clueless, who doesn’t even know what the DOE does and is only reiterating bygone Reagan talking points, says so.

King, I guess it’s like you worrying about Fox News, an outlet you claim no one is watching.

Or perhaps I should say ED because the DOE is actually the anagram for the Dept. of Energy

The Department of Education does not educate one child. The DOD, through on base schools, educates more children. The “ED” is nothing but a waste of money.

What does the ED do?
“The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is responsible for maintaining policies related to education. They provide financial aid to students and help them find other resources for financial aid. ED also studies trends, ideas and techniques in education to determine what works. The U.S. Department of Education works to improve the education system and provide educators with information that can make them better teachers.”

In translation…the Education Department waste money. In fact, there is not statistical evidence that the ED has improved anything.

The New York Times hurting the nation? Well, except for all those years they pimped for Stalin. And, I guess you need to include all those naive things they said about Castro, when they cheered him on. Okay, I guess you need to take into account their support of all these Ponzi scheme entitlements that are bankrupting the country. Hmm, they have supported every tax increase since the beginning of time. And, yes, the out-and-out lies and distortions of people like Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and company…..

Well, the Times crossword puzzle is pretty good, ain’t it?

The Department of Education could disappear tomorrow, and it wouldn’t be missed–except by the bureaucrats who work there, and the lobbyists and their clients who get favors from these bureaucrats. It’s not clear that there has been any improvement in schools as a result, of Carter’s creation of the Department of Education in 1980. And if there have been improvement, they are almost certainly the result of steps taken at the local level, not due to the pencil pushers in D.C.

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 26, 2010 at 10:14 am
They provide financial aid to students and help them find other resources for financial aid.
Translation, they do their job by putting millions of students through college with aid. I don’t know where you get yours from, but statistical evidence says quite the contrary that the number of students attending and graduating from college has drastically increased since the department’s inception.

felixw says:
May 26, 2010 at 10:29 am
See? That’s what I mean. This idiotic “it’s not doing anything, but if it is, it’s because of something else” crap that people spew. You argument has no base and no support. The big boys are trying to debate here, go back in the sand box with glue eating Palin, bully limbaugh and cry baby Beck.

Ironic that in D.C., forty-one per cent of the kids don’t graduate high school.

Hey Reasonable Lib, let me keep some more of my money and not send it to D.C. and I won’t need there special Department of Education programs. The idea of taxing me one dollar, spending half of it to support a D.C. bureaucracy, then giving me back fifty cents for education is typical of your brilliant left-wing ideas. That’s why the government debt is now $117,900 per taxpayer, and why none of these entitlements will be around for the next generation.

writer says:
May 26, 2010 at 10:35 am
Actually that’s 51%
And yes, D.C. is a sh*thole, however, I have never argued that they improve education at a secondary and elementary level, my argument is post-secondary. My opponents however argue that it does absolutely nothing, which is not the case. Whereas D.C. may not be doing well, other states have seen a dramatic increase such as Ohio have seen an increase in graduates, can’t say the same for Texas, let’s hope that new curriculum helps.

Providing student loans can and has been done by banks. You don’t need a huge government entity with an annual budget of $63 billion to do it. And I’m sure that “maintaining policies related to education” and “providing educators with information” isn’t a BIG FREAKIN MONEY HOLE.

This deranged left-wing notion that every problem must be solved by a Washington D.C. bureaucracy has been the single most destructive political ideology of our lifetimes. And the Democrats own it, completely and totally. Whether you view it from the perspective of efficiency, accountability, or just sheer financial prudence, this statist approach has been proven, again and again, to be wrong-headed and destructive.

felixw says:
May 26, 2010 at 10:42 am
Oh dear god, you have no idea how gov’t agencies work. You do realize that in government agencies less than 10 cents on the dollar goes to administrative costs, correct? No, of course you don’t. And if half of my tax dollars go towards putting somebody through college, then that’s money well spent because that person goes on to make money which generates more revenue for gov’t which makes it more likely that I will receive a tax cut in the future. The reason for the debt is due to drastic tax cuts by the previous administrations actually dating back to Carter. Cutting taxes does not bring about deficit reduction. When we finally had a budget surplus rather than paying off some of that debt, Bush cut taxes again, and Obama continued those tax cuts, which by the way the CBO predicted would create record deficits when they were first proposed. Maybe you should look into things more.

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 26, 2010 at 10:47 am
It’s more than simple loans. Obtaining loans through banks is something entirely different. Banks are less likely to lend to students from low income families whether you know it or not, and will most often urge them to get a co-signer, which is impossible for students whose parents cannot support families because they more than likely have bad credit, which is the case with the majority of Americans nowadays. This isn’t me generalizing, these are statistics. Government loans for students are much easier to obtain, and now that the banks have been cut out as the middle man, generate more revenue for government through interest paid on the loans as students are likely to obtain more through unsubsidized loans than subsidized.

felixw says:
May 26, 2010 at 10:47 am
This deranged right-wing notion that their idea and only their idea is correct has been the single most destructive element to the United States in history. It is possible to run gov’t programs well, hundreds of countries around the world do it daily. Is it possible to do so in the US? Not as long as people have this deranged notion that everything government is the enemy and that they shouldn’t pay taxes. You don’t go to McDonald’s and order a fry and not pay. No, you receive a product or service and you pay for it, period. Many on the right want you to believe that private can do everything better when that is not the case when things are done properly. This right-wing approach of the market doing things didn’t work when it was proposed in the Great Depression, and it won’t work now, there is no one stop shop for all your economy correction needs.

Poor dumb Reasonable, have you ever worked for any government agency? I have, you have no idea what you are talking about. You prove that with every comment.

gordonbloyershow says:
May 26, 2010 at 11:21 am
No, Gordon, you prove your own idiocy with every comment whether it be youtube or here. Perhaps I should post the picture of my post on your page which you deleted? You’re pathetic, old man. Like when I said “Obama’s approval rating is hovering safely around 50%” and you posted the numbers which were in that very area, and then when it shot up the next day to 50% and I posted it, you had nothing to say. Go sit down before you hurt yourself, idiot.

The Real Royal King says:
May 26, 2010 at 8:13 am

Couldn’t the same be said about the left and Glenn Beck. Again… inconsistencies from you, but you never said you weren’t a hypocrite, so I guess it’s okay.

Oh, and to answer your question… as has been discussed by O’Reilly and guests previously… why the mainstream of America has somewhat turned their back on the NYT, a lot of news outlets still take their marching orders from them. They are still a global newspaper, and still garner attention… especially when one of these types of stories comes out.

Either way, interesting deflection King. I’m sure nobody noticed it.

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
May 26, 2010 at 9:29 am

Whatever happened to freedom of press, guys?

Freedom of the press should not interfere with the lives of soldiers abroad. If a news outlet releases information that puts people’s lives at risk, there’s a problem… is there not?

Lib:
“people have this deranged notion that everything government is the enemy and that they shouldn’t pay taxes.”

Can you please reference where one of us said we don’t want to pay taxes and everything in government is bad. You are obviously distorting, distracting and diverting. Most American’s don’t mind paying moderate taxes for constitutional services. For example, most American’s expect the federal government to secure our borders, which of course they fail to do, provide for the defense, establish post offices and post roads….etc. I never said that everything in the government was bad. As an example, I’m glad we have a military.

What American’s don’t like is wasteful spending, something even the US military does well. I know, I spend 10 years as a Marine.

When Bu$h cut taxes it didn’t create the debt/ deficit. In fact, from ’01 to ’07 the highest deficit year was ’04 with a deficit of just under $400 billion. It started to go go down, even with the wars, until ’08 when he sign the TARP debacle. And from ’03 to 07 revenues from taxes actually rose.

Reasonable Lib, you are the one who has no understanding of how government works. In addition to the direct overhead of a D.C. bureaucracy, you need to factor in all the pork, perks and payoffs. If you think housing an Obama pencil pusher is just a matter of rent and electricity, you are hopelessly naive. Then again, you must be hopelessly naive if you want to solve local matters out of Washington, D.C.

Federal Government Revenue by year in BILLIONS.

2001 3833.89
2002 3330.71 (After tax cut decrease)
2003 3764.08 (Increase)
2004 3932.09 (Increase)
2005 4306.69 (Increase)
2006 4763.17 (Increase)
2007 5237.39 (Increase)
2008 4989.70 (Decrease)

So your little “Redistribution” claim that lowering taxes created this debt/ deficit is clearly false. Bu$h increased spending, just like a good neocon/liberal, which is what caused the deficit/ debt.

Liberty, you are absolutely correct. The Bush tax cuts increased government revenues, just as the Reagan tax cuts did back in the 1980s. But the Left doesn’t like to base opinions on facts and numbers. They hate tax cuts because of the class envy that is at the heart of their ideology. Even if tax cuts create jobs and grow the economy — as they always do — the Left is still opposed to them.

The irony is that the Left claims that is goal is to eliminate poverty. in truth, their program invariably make poverty more entrenched and ineradicable, and actually serve merely to eliminate wealth.

republicans hurt the nation every day

“Covert operations in the Middle East…”?? Surely you jest!

Talk about uptight….Ralph Peters looks like a guy who has’nt taken a shit in three weeks.