Posted on 06/24/2006 11:33:44 AM PDT by Coastal
Liberal columnist Mort Kondracke echoed the sentiments of many Americans: The New York Times leaked information about a top secret banking operation, which was aimed at stopping terrorist financing and money transfers, because of their hatred for President George W. Bush.
President Bush implored the Times not to run their story, but the editors decided to disregard the presidential request. (One cannot help but wonder: If President Bill Clinton were our Commander-in-Chief today, would the editors at the New York Times comply with his request to kill the story? Most probably.)
Americans following the aftermath of the Times leak knew that part of the news story.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalledger.com ...
Great idea. And, you are correct about taking a loss.
However, my question is, would an individual, or group of individuals have to purchase 51% of the stock to have the ability to change the way the paper is controlled?
What is even more treasonous is the person who leaked this to the newspapers. That is who should be prosecuted to the nth degree.
Perhaps when they informed Congress a few months ago they did so to see who would leak. (Foregone conclusion that it would happen!) Perhaps the terrorists have already moved to a different method of transferring money and Swift wasn't as useful as it was previously.
If I were a classified secret leaker I'd be a little concerned. (A LOT concerned!)
Jen
The 'good-thing' about this seditious act by the NYSlimes... is that the Dhimicrat party is backing them up! By their own pathetic nature... they cannot fathom what American's feel when their country is put at risk... for purely political gain.
It is true that Swift wanted out, and modifications were made to please them, to save the program, but perhaps too many people knew about it and were not happy (while they continued to live far away from terrorist targets).
It's the NYTimes version of "good business".
If they expose but fail to kill a secret program, .... they sell papers.
If they expose and kill the program and, as a result, a few thousand of us get killed, then they hit the jackpot and sell even more newspapers.
Like, who needs enemies? Either way, it works out great for the Times, but the rest of us are screwed.
When they finally go broke, I will dance on the grave of the New York Times. It will be a very good day for the country.
Instead they'll get book and movie deals and never have to work again. Hence the incentive.
Pinchy is a packer?
All of New York City's recently reduced Homeland Security grant should be diverted to the capture of the traitor mole that leaked this information to The New York Times.When that person is settled in Club Gitmo, what's left of the fund if anything, should be given back to NYC by way of Chucky Schumer with a note that reads:
" Now do you understand how this works?"
Probably starting with the war of 1812.
Yes, hang them.
Though the Slimes circulation is down, you can bet that the terrorists and Islamofacists are reading it! I wouldn't be surprised if these two "journalists" are made honorary Al Qaida...they should be!
Collectively we'd have to own 51% I believe. There are Class B shares owned by the Sulzberger family. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if they have more clout that stockholders holding the general stock would be able to wield.
Jen
According to their editor, because they could."
Sounds like the Bill Clinton defense
The Class B stock (which isn't publicly traded) gets to vote on a majority of the seats on the Board of Directors. Care to guess who owns most of the Class B stock? Yep, you guessed right. The Sulzbergers.
What scum of earth! I really do hate these people.
First things first. Get someone knowledgeable to head this up. Unfortunately, that's not me (or you from your last post). Next, find out how many shares would have to be purchased. Then, campaign on FR to get 'er done.
Anybody out there interested in heading something like this up?
Sounds like there's no way to overcome the Class B stock issue.
No you don't have to own 51% of the stock. Once you have held at least $2000 worth of company stock for at least a year you can submit a resolution for everyone else to vote on at the annual meeting. The two questions you have to ask are does it have a chance of passing, and even if it doesn't, is it worth bringing just to highlight the issue. Shareholder resolutions can stir up talk in the press and put pressure on management regardless of how the vote turns out.
Does it have a chance of passing? Look at who owns the existing shares. If insiders own a large percentage of the existing stock, the chances of a resolution unfavorable to management passing are very low because management will dependably vote its shares and vote no. Retail shareholders often do not vote their shares. Institutions could go either way.
Google "shareholder resolutions" to start educating yourself. There may be nonprofit orgs that might help you if you are serious. They are probably lefty in orientation but I would not make any assumptions here; this one may just cross ideological boundaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.