HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Newsweek Cover-- WTF?
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:43 PM

Newsweek Cover-- WTF?

So I come home from walking to dog to find that the 'ordained' would-be senator for the state north of me has opened his trap about rape- what an idiot. Good.


But just now I'm cruising The Daily Beast, and I come across what is supposed to be the newest cover of Newsweek:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html




Someone tell me this tripe is a spoof. Is it April Fool's Day already??

89 replies, 22518 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply Newsweek Cover-- WTF? (Original post)
Spaldeen Aug 2012 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #1
Spaldeen Aug 2012 #7
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #11
Blue_Tires Aug 2012 #73
Dawson Leery Aug 2012 #2
hay rick Aug 2012 #10
flamingdem Aug 2012 #12
russspeakeasy Aug 2012 #14
flamingdem Aug 2012 #3
JaneyVee Aug 2012 #4
wilt the stilt Aug 2012 #5
flamingdem Aug 2012 #8
Tom Ripley Aug 2012 #9
Tom Ripley Aug 2012 #6
Dkc05 Aug 2012 #13
Spaldeen Aug 2012 #15
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #16
Dkc05 Aug 2012 #17
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #18
Khan Aug 2012 #77
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #78
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #79
jberryhill Aug 2012 #33
Spaldeen Aug 2012 #38
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #42
jberryhill Aug 2012 #43
Spaldeen Aug 2012 #44
jberryhill Aug 2012 #46
Tunkamerica Aug 2012 #55
jberryhill Aug 2012 #59
Tunkamerica Aug 2012 #80
Skip Intro Aug 2012 #19
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #20
LuckyTheDog Aug 2012 #21
Dkc05 Aug 2012 #70
2ndAmForComputers Aug 2012 #22
jberryhill Aug 2012 #47
NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #52
flamingdem Aug 2012 #64
Gidney N Cloyd Aug 2012 #25
jberryhill Aug 2012 #31
Posteritatis Aug 2012 #35
Yo_Mama Aug 2012 #49
woo me with science Aug 2012 #81
Dkc05 Aug 2012 #82
LeftishBrit Aug 2012 #86
JaneyVee Aug 2012 #23
spanone Aug 2012 #24
Kalidurga Aug 2012 #28
Major Nikon Aug 2012 #32
still_one Aug 2012 #26
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #27
Spaldeen Aug 2012 #36
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2012 #39
tkmorris Aug 2012 #48
progree Aug 2012 #50
jberryhill Aug 2012 #60
MadrasT Aug 2012 #72
LeftishBrit Aug 2012 #88
jberryhill Aug 2012 #29
Spaldeen Aug 2012 #34
jberryhill Aug 2012 #37
Spaldeen Aug 2012 #40
jberryhill Aug 2012 #41
KT2000 Aug 2012 #30
progree Aug 2012 #45
Heather MC Aug 2012 #56
Amonester Aug 2012 #51
lpbk2713 Aug 2012 #53
CanonRay Aug 2012 #54
Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2012 #57
demosincebirth Aug 2012 #63
renate Aug 2012 #67
Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2012 #58
jillan Aug 2012 #61
YvonneCa Aug 2012 #62
flamingdem Aug 2012 #65
DFW Aug 2012 #66
Cha Aug 2012 #68
craigmatic Aug 2012 #69
Catherine Vincent Aug 2012 #71
Usuk Aug 2012 #74
treestar Aug 2012 #75
Khan Aug 2012 #76
George_M Aug 2012 #83
Ruby the Liberal Aug 2012 #84
hlthe2b Aug 2012 #85
LeftishBrit Aug 2012 #89
LeftishBrit Aug 2012 #87

Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:45 PM

1. No, it's just that neocon douche Niall Ferguson.

He's a joke anyhow, and so is Newsweek, which hardly anybody reads anymore. They might be desperate for controversy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:52 PM

7. What are their circulation numbers?

I figured they might be trying to drum up numbers. I don't see Newsweek for sale on the magazine racks in my area. Are they subscription only?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:58 PM

11. Pretty sad lately.

Since 2008, Newsweek has undergone a series of internal and external contractions designed to shift the magazine's focus and audience while shoring up the title's finances. Instead, losses at the newsweekly accelerated: revenue dropped 38 percent from 2007 to 2009. The revenue freefall prompted an August 2010 sale by owner The Washington Post Company to 92-year-old audio pioneer Sidney Harman—reportedly for a purchase price of $1.00 and an assumption of the magazine's liabilities. Editor Jon Meacham departed from the magazine upon completion of the sale.

In November 2010 Newsweek merged with the news and opinion website The Daily Beast after extensive negotiations between the proprietors of the respective publications. Tina Brown, The Daily Beast's editor-in-chief has since served as the editor of both publications. Newsweek is jointly owned by the estate of the late Harman and the diversified American Internet company IAC.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek

Somehow I don't think turning it into a cheap tabloid will help. I wonder how long it will be before we see it in the checkout line at the grocery store with the National Enquirer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:01 PM

73. Well TIME got a lot of attention from a big-ass kid slurping a MILF's nip-nips

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:45 PM

2. There is a reason Newsweek was sold for a dollar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:54 PM

10. Sidney Harman didn't have any change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:02 PM

12. Sidney was a good guy! I don't know if he intended to push Newsweek to the left

but after he bought it some of the issues were in that direction.

After Tina moved in it really went down hill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:04 PM

14. THAT IS DAMNED FUNNY !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:46 PM

3. Stooping low with teh stupid

Way to go Newsweek to improve circulation -- think they're taking a page from that New Yorker cover that caused that magazine to fly off the shelves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:46 PM

4. Guess its payback for the Mitt Romney WIMP cover, I guess.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:49 PM

5. what i need to know

a fuckin' limey who knows nothing about America tell ing us we need to change presidents. FU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wilt the stilt (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:53 PM

8. A Redcoat Imperialist Tory pig

Get back to your puny island posthaste!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wilt the stilt (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:53 PM

9. It's a part of Tina Brown's jobs program

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:51 PM

6. I see Highlights for Children far more often than Newsweek in today's waiting rooms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:02 PM

13. can the DOJ ban the cover.

Stop the circulation as its not honest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:10 PM

15. Can the DOJ do that?

People know the stuff on the front of the National Enquirer is never true, but that's still out there for people to buy.

Maybe it matters if it's subscription only or something you can buy off the news stand. I haven't ever seen it on the news stand, so I always assumed it was subscription only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:10 PM

16. No, and they should not try.

There's that inconvenient First Amendment thingy. Newsweek can publish what it wants, even if it's bullshit, and the government can't and shouldn't shut them down. That sword cuts two ways.

I am always astonished and appalled when I read on a liberal website a call for suppression of the press by the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:22 PM

17. i dont see the issue they published trash

Ban them or fine them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:34 PM

18. "Trash" is protected speech according to the Constitution.

And who decides what "trash" is? How would you like it if a Romney administration forced a magazine to remove an article critical of them, claiming it was "trash"? The First Amendment protects virtually all speech, even pornography (with certain time, place and manner restrictions). If something is actually false, you have the remedy of a libel lawsuit (although if the person libeled is a public figure they have to prove the false statement was made with actual malice). But what the courts have called prior restraint - the government preventing publication - is completely unconstitutional. As it should be. And I'm damn glad for that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #18)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:46 PM

77. Can't the Justice department

 

Just interpret the 1st amendment to mean that we can outlaw articles like this? Just like we interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that it refers to the national guard. Isn't the Constitution a living and breathing document? It needs to be adapted to the modern world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Khan (Reply #77)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:25 PM

78. No! The DOJ has no authority to do anything like that.

The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution, and it has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects political speech of this sort. If the DOJ tried to get Newsweek to pull the article it would have its ass handed to it in court - as it should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Khan (Reply #77)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 12:28 AM

79. Yes. That's all part of the sooooper-secret Obama Plan. It's why we faked Teh Barf Cartipricat.

Once we grab teh guns, then we interpret the constitution to mean we can censor Tina Brown's shitty iteration of Newsweek, much the same way as we came up with that crazy constitutional interpretation in the Griswold Decision that says women can use birth control.

You know, those little pink pills "freedom-lurvin" Republicans want to throw them in prison for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:36 PM

33. Can you remind us...

...when was the last time the US government "banned" a magazine.

I realize that there are people who believe the US government has become some sort of dictatorship. These people never seem to notice that this dictatorship is doing lousy job of locking up its critics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:45 PM

38. Well,

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine be something that might apply in this case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:56 PM

42. No, for several reasons:

First, the Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission rule that required equal time for political opinions that appeared in broadcast media - that is, radio and broadcast (not cable) TV that held broadcast licenses issued by the FCC. Therefore it wouldn't apply to magazine articles.

Second, the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:02 AM

43. Uh, no

First of all, the "fairness doctrine" was a rule requiring publicly licensed broadcast radio and tv to provide equal time to candidates. It was never about content, and had nothing to do with print media, which does not require an FCC license.

Secondly, it was discarded years ago. It was considered particularly untenable since cable networks, which do not use FCC licensed broadcast spectrum, were operating without it, and it was thus considered an anti-competitive regulation.

Oddly, the only people who continue to believe it exists at all tend to be wingnutz, who further believe that net neutrality regulation has something to do with content, rather than technical specifications and packet routing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:11 AM

44. Yeah, I knew the FD was no longer with us

I meant it as more of a 'what if' type of answer, since I couldn't answer your question about print media being banned.

I do know there have been rumblings on DU in the past of working the FD back in (plausible, or not), and using it against our tubby friend that dominates the AM airways, so I tossed it out there in sort of a 'what if' moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:15 AM

46. I doubt you will find much support on DU

...for the idea of banning or fining magazines on the basis of editorial content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:47 AM

55. I think you're mistaken or you were reading a post from one of the many temporary trolls

that pop in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tunkamerica (Reply #55)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:52 AM

59. There are trolls on DU?

Are you meaning to suggest that there are people who sign up to DU who pretend to be liberals or progressives, but come off sounding as if they were a B movie version of a 1960's radical revolutionary faction?

Why would anyone do such a thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #59)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 05:28 AM

80. I know it's a stretch, but I read a rumor that it happens...

MORE THAN YOU THINK!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:38 PM

19. Very scary suggestion.


I know banning unpopular expression here is all the rage for some, but should the government ban, or even try to ban, a magazine (or writer, author, filmmaker, artist) because it is critical of a politician, ANY politician, it would be a direct attack on the foundations of this nation and on our dearly-held rights of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Requiring government approval of political commentary? No thank you. Horrible idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:49 PM

20. Thank you.

It kind of freaks me out when I see comments like that here, on DU. We, at least, should know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:51 PM

21. Niall Ferguson is entitled to his views, even if he is wrong. We shouldn't demonize him

I know he can be a douche. But I found "The Ascent of Money" to be a pretty good read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #19)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:22 AM

70. we might lose because of a lie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:57 PM

22. Nice try.

But the caricature of the Freedom Hating Liberal must be done with a bit more subtlety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:15 AM

47. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:22 AM

52. I'm glad somene said it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:28 AM

64. +2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:06 PM

25. Dear god...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:28 PM

31. LOL

Welcome to DU.

Your complimentary copy of the First Amendment is located in the seat pocket in front of you. Please take a moment to review it while we demonstrate safety features of this website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:40 PM

35. This isn't the dumbest thing I've seen here today only because I read Akin first. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:15 AM

49. If the DoJ had the right to do that,

what do you think news magazines would print when a Republican had the presidency?

Think twice. There is a reason why the thirteen founding states wouldn't ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. That is the most frightening, witless suggestion I never hope to read on a "progressive" political forum again.

You may be ignorant of the Constitution, but you can't be devoid of simple logic. If the government has the power to do that in any circumstance, there will always be the time when the government chooses to suppress speech that you believe is true.

Totalitarian progressivism is not something I can support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 05:36 AM

81. They should just drone-kill the author.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #81)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 08:00 AM

82. i think you have the solution

But its messy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:17 AM

86. Doesn't the American constitution's First Amendment preclude such actions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:01 PM

23. WE? Niall Ferguson isn't even a U.S. citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:05 PM

24. from krugman to newsweek....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/krugman-to-newsweek-correct-obama-story-132502.html


Tina Brown -- (sigh) -- is out with yet another -- (sigh) -- controversial edition of Newsweek.

The cover-story, which hit the top of Drudge Report on Sunday evening, is by Niall Ferguson and titled "Hit The Road, Barack: Why We Need a New President." For those who don't know Ferguson, he's an Oxford-trained Harvard historian who was once ranked among the most influential people in the world by Time Magazine. He is also to the subject of the past what Malcolm Gladwell is to the subject of the future: a weaver of disparate facts and data that, when selectively thrown into the same pot, create in the reader that best-selling a-ha feeling.

Ferguson also dabbles in counterfactual history, and in keeping with the genre has managed to write a cover-story about our incumbent president that, as New York Times op-ed writer and economist Paul Krugman points out tonight, runs counter to fact.

"There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking..." Krugman writes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:23 PM

28. They can't fact check...

It isn't because they don't know how or the facts are obscure, either. They can't fact check because if they do, they have to switch their outrage to something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:29 PM

32. Krugman hates Ferguson and vise versa

Krugman called him a poseur and schooled him on economics a few years ago when he was predictably criticizing Obama's economic policy. It was funny as hell. Ferguson is a neocon prick that was an Iraq war cheerleader. He is frequently full of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:20 PM

26. I haven't read Newsweek for over a decade. You just reminded me why? /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:22 PM

27. Niall Ferguson is an atheist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:42 PM

36. Hmm, ok...

So are you saying his atheism somehow compelled him to write this?

I'm not trying to be funny or provoke you. I'm just not up to speed on this Niall guy, so I'm seriously wondering if you know something that I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:46 PM

39. So?

Are you suggesting that his atheism somehow led to his anti-Obama douchebaggery? If so, in what way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:15 AM

48. So am I. Did you have a point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:17 AM

50. All atheists don't need God because they think they are God, have no ethics or morals, since that

comes from God, as revealed by God to his children in the Holy Bible.

Is that whatcha thinkin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:54 AM

60. Well, at least he's not, you know, one of "them"

Whatever the hell relevance this has to anything is left as an exercise to the reader, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 02:55 PM

72. WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #27)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:31 AM

88. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

I don't know whether you mean that there's something wrong with being an atheist, or that atheists can't be right-wing; but neither of these is true!

ETA: I now see that I posted the same as MadrasT before even seeing their post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:25 PM

29. I wish the Secret Service sold that logo watch


The watch was a gift from his secret service team and has their logo on it.

Jorg Gray makes an inscribed "presidential" version of their 6500 model, but without the logo on the one he actually wears.



It's a tad thick, but I'd wear it if they got permission to make the logo version apart from Secret Service special orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

34. That is a nice watch.

The dials remind me of the Navisail I used to own (albiet rotated 90 degrees clockwise), until someone stole it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Reply #34)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:44 PM

37. It's an okay watch

It's a Japanese quartz movement that is nothing to write home about. The convex glass is nice, and it is not one of those freaking huge dials which have, for reasons beyond me, come to dominate the category at that price level.

He's only been seen with two watches AFAIK. He wears the other one, a Tag Heuer, that was also a gift, as a sports watch, and this one is his dress watch.

Here's the Tag 1500 dive watch:



That was a good value watch. The band is brown:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #37)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:47 PM

40. Not a huge fan of the big dials, either.

I'd prefer a metal band myself on this watch, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Reply #40)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:56 PM

41. Obama is a long time leather band guy...



That's a pretty cool watch for a kid.

Except for my "beater" swatch with a plastic band, I also prefer metal bands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:27 PM

30. Niall Ferguson is their

RW pundit. Reading his column feels like one has to become a contortionist by the time it is done. Finally gave up on even reading his stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:11 AM

45. Romney: The Wimp Factor - Is He Just Too Insecure To Be President? Newsweek Cover Story 2 weeks ago

Romney: The Wimp Factor - Is He Just Too Insecure To Be President? By Michael Tomasky
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/29/michael-tomasky-a-candidate-with-a-serious-wimp-problem.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #45)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:47 AM

56. Thanks I just posted this on a WingNuts FB page that was all happy about the Obama Cover LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:21 AM

51. After selling to Obama's supporters two weeks ago...

they want to sell to Robmehood's supporters now?

Maybe they're trying to 'maximize' profits?

So they pollute...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:22 AM

53. It's in the MSM's interest to keep the GOP alive.




They are all but down for the count now as it is. The MSM would have nothing
to sell if they had no alleged controversies to publish. If they can't find any
stories to publish they just make shit up just to keep the pot stirred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:43 AM

54. Glad I had already dumped my subscription.

What a RW rag it has turned into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:49 AM

57. Newsweek, you are dead to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:26 AM

63. I'll dump mine tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:50 AM

67. I have to admit, I've never had a subscription

But every once in a while Amazon will sell subscriptions really cheap and I prefer reading things on paper than on the screen, so I've considered it.

No more. Not that the anti-Romney cover tempted me; in fact, I don't think the cover of a news magazine should editorialize like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:21 AM

61. And we should replace Barack Obama with Mitt Romney - is this guy high?


That's what is so laughable about this cover - even if the right wing believed this should happen - the right wing offered:

A tax evader, job outsourcer, let Detroit fail, medicare voucher, tax cuts to millionaires, cuts to programs that benefit the most vulnerable in society, constant bullshitter & major buffoon.

And that is not what this country needs.

Obama/Biden 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #61)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:25 AM

62. ...

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:30 AM

65. On the plus side he's still mighty handsome

even if they manipulate the photo and try to make him look "questionable".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:33 AM

66. Is this the Libbrul media the radical right is always whining about? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:57 AM

68. Tweet found on

the obama diary..

"Did @Newsweek or @TheTinaBeast fact check @nfergus's article? The mistakes and BS LIES are embarrassing. thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/…

19 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavoriteJournalists are pissed off about this article. There're articles and tweets pointing out the LIES that are rampant in these moronic article. The Journos have been mocking Ferguson on twitter for his erroneous nonsense.

How desperate is Tina Brown that she features this crap on the cover page? A lot of subscribers on twitter say they’re calling NewsWeek and revoking their subscriptions. At the rate Tina’s going, NewsWeek won’t be around at the end of Pres. Obama’s second term."


When they put mitt on the cover a couple of weeks ago it was all "legitamate" reporting of his quotes on his foreign policy tour..They put PObama on with a package of lies from rw Ferguson. Was it noted who he was after the article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 02:03 AM

69. This can't be payback for the romney cover because this surpasses the 'wimp factor' they're saying

the president shouldn't be elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:10 AM

71. I remember their cover with Newt Gingrich

It had "THE LOSER" on top of a pic of Newt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:32 AM

75. Oddly the photo is pretty good

He looks confident and Presidential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 04:25 PM

76. Beat them with the facts

 

It would be much better if you could provide a counter argument to the Newsweek article?

Obama did make a lot of promises during the 2008 campaign and after the election. Did he keep those promises? Didn't he say that if he didn't improve the economy that he would be a one term president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)


Response to George_M (Reply #83)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:53 PM

84. AGW?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George_M (Reply #83)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:55 PM

85. what is AGW and who is the "AGW idol"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #85)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:54 PM

89. Anthropogenic Global Warming. Don't know who the 'AGW idol' is, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spaldeen (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:29 AM

87. Argh. Niall Ferguson is a disgusting man.

Unfortunately he seems to be involved negatively in the politics of two different countries. He's British by origin, writes for the Financial Times, and did for the Torygraph, and is advising Michael Gove, our idiot Education Secretary, on history teaching in the UK (uggghhh!). At the same time, he seems to identify strongly with the American Right ('we need a new president') and was also involved in McCain's campaign. I don't know whether he actually is a dual citizen, but he certainly seems to cause double trouble.

He was one of the worst choices ever for the Reith Lectures.

Nasty arrogant bastard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread