I tend to believe people change their minds when their minds are psychologically shocked out of their normal pattern, like with 9/11. That provides the impetus, along with personality traits of integrity and self-honesty.

Start with this list.

Google Mark Lane, Al Hubbard, Steve Pitkin.

Go here for lots of info and FBI files on the VVAW.

After that, see if you still believe everything you’ve been told about Viet Nam.

Bush is NOT the “pushing to enforce laws” kind of Pres. that the Left claims he is (and claims to fear).

We need a tyrant, a dictator, a man of steel. Like Roosevelt in WWII, and Teddy Roosevelt the war monger. They would have had zero trouble saying “Oh those terroists we captured, 4 years of interrogation? Execute them, their buddies killed 2 of our own”

Those Mexican military units on the border? Smoke one of them with a Predator missile when they cross our territory and make sure everyone sees where their bodies are planted, on our side rather than theirs. Roosevelt, a cold man that was going to kill all of ya with his mega war. He was a great example of ruthless Democrat war mongering.

John Snow wrote that he had firm effort to stop publication, not “half-hearted”. False. Any words less than using police force to enforce Sedition Acts laws is, like UN resolution (after resolution after…) half-hearted at best.

Second, buyers should start boycotting the products of the biggest 3 advertisers in the NYT. This would best be done in organization, perhaps from family survivors of terror victims, including war veterans, family, and 9/11 survivors.

Telling US secrets is helping the killers.

How the MSM helped us lose a war, condemned thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians–people who trusted our word– to labor camps and worse, brought down a president, paralyized our military willpower for decades.

It beggars belief that there are *still* people in the US who continue to hold on to the assumption that the Vietnam War was somehow moral and just on the part of the USA, and that the only problem with that War was that a sizeable number of Americans opposed it.

Which would mean anyone giving anyone else an exclusive, is using propaganda. Which is true, but not in the sense that Probligo used it as.

That requires no changes to anything from the past. It does not require the establishment of a Ministry of Enlightenment, or Ministry of Information.”

I have not made a call for a Ministry of any kind. Nor did Neo as I recall. If someone else did, I am not defending that.

I think most people here are suggesting SW’s course of action you mention; prosecution for criminal behavior. The Times appears to have divulged classified information about a program which even they say is not illegal, but which is useful for thwarting their nation’s enemies. Divulging classified information is illegal. So, I am not sure we are in disagreement here.

Okay, can we say we agree on two things:

1-The government, any government, should not be able to dictate to the media what it writes or broadcasts. That is antithetical to the concept of freedom of the press.

2-The press does not have carte blanche to print or broadcast anything without consideration for individual rights and national security. Just like any other entity, the media can be held liable for breaking the law when self-restraint and ethics fail.

Can we agree that these are basic and fair tenets to operate by?

The NYT and the LAT are hoping that certain elements will rally to their defense and that such rallying will result in increased revenue. Not going to happen. The habitat niche the Old Media occupied has run out of time.

They’ve got a 30% list, they’re taking water in the lower deck gun ports and they’re still arranging deck chairs.