Google
 

View Full Version : the Times, voice of the left, knows what's best for us


Cosmo
11-11-2002, 10:41 PM
Monday, Nov. 11, 2002
American Voters Enrage the New York Times

For all those who voted Republican in Tuesday's elections, you should know that the New York Times is terribly upset at you. And it, of course, knows what's best for you.

In an item headlined "Left-wing jihad," the Washington Times today reported: "The New York Times editorial page, denouncing mainstream conservatives as extremists, yesterday called on Senate Democrats to use whatever means necessary to maintain control of the federal judiciary.

"The newspaper, whose editorials often are far to the left of even most Democrats, suggested that it represents the views of centrists against extremists and racists, including President Bush."

The New York Times actually said that in the interests of "consultation and consensus," the Bush administration should have all judicial nominees cleared in advance by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman-not-for-long of the Judiciary Committee.

The president's judicial nominees "favor taking away the right to abortion, striking down reasonable environmental regulations and turning back the clock on race," claimed the New York Times. It failed to name any nominees who favor "turning back the clock on race."

The Old Gray Lady went on to rage, "With the White House representing the far right in the nominating process, it remains up to the Senate — even in its new configuration — to represent the rest of the country."

Note to the New York Times: The "rest of the country" voted for its representatives Tuesday, whether you like or not. Apparently the Times still doesn't realize that the more the leftist media and the hateful Hollywood left endorse extremist Democrats, the more that helps Republicans.

Kraw
11-12-2002, 10:55 AM
pretty sad when a newspaper tells you you voted wrong. pathetic actually

isn't that why we are in the US, we have free will to vote as we please for whom we please??!?!!?

The Frog
11-12-2002, 11:43 AM
But, Kraw..if you don't vote for who they want you to vote for, you're just an idiot who is being led astray....cause they are correct in everything..that's why they are the NYT.

86Dude
11-14-2002, 04:30 PM
The NY Times or the Washington Post aren't even worthy enough to wipe my ass with. Nothing they write surprises me.

Monster
11-14-2002, 05:07 PM
Cosmo, I have two words for you: SO WHAT?!

You make it sound like no newspaper in history ever editorialized. Three more words: William Randloph Hearst. Yellow Journalism was exactly that: editorialized and inflammatory journalism with little to no real journalistic content.

You don't agree with the NYT? Don't read it. Simple. You have choices, and if you persist in reading a paper that you don't agree with, than maybe you should re-think a few things, like your psychological response to sadomasochism.

Truth Teller
11-14-2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by 86Dude
The NY Times or the Washington Post aren't even worthy enough to wipe my ass with. .



That's what I say about The Washington Times and The Limbuagh Letter.:D

QtrHrsmn
11-14-2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Kraw
pretty sad when a newspaper tells you you voted wrong. pathetic actually

isn't that why we are in the US, we have free will to vote as we please for whom we please??!?!!? Don't you know, Kraw? Before TV, the newspapers really DID control popular opinion. People DID believe blindly what editors and journalists wrote, because they considered them better educated, honest, and more intelligent. What a laugh, right?

The papers report what they think will inflame the public, however with better education for the masses, it often backfires, since people are just sick and tired of all the crap.

Cosmo
11-14-2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Stage Monster
Cosmo, I have two words for you: SO WHAT?!

You make it sound like no newspaper in history ever editorialized. Three more words: William Randloph Hearst. Yellow Journalism was exactly that: editorialized and inflammatory journalism with little to no real journalistic content.

You don't agree with the NYT? Don't read it. Simple. You have choices, and if you persist in reading a paper that you don't agree with, than maybe you should re-think a few things, like your psychological response to sadomasochism.

I spend a lot of time reading what the other side puts out. more than I do reading Conservative sources, I already know what I stand for. |But it is prudent to know the enemy. Munite, Munitus.

Redfield
11-15-2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Cosmo
Note to the New York Times: The "rest of the country" voted for its representatives Tuesday, whether you like or not. Apparently the Times still doesn't realize that the more the leftist media and the hateful Hollywood left endorse extremist Democrats, the more that helps Republicans.
:werd:

TT-
It sounds like you would be a great addition to the NY Times' staff. ;):)

Manu
11-15-2002, 01:11 AM
Anyone have registration at NYtimes.com? I'd like to read the editorial to see what they said.

You know, its an editorial, an OPINION of one person (or the board if written by the board)

How is it any different than reading a post here or an editorial on newsmax or something?

Truth Teller
11-15-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Redfield

:werd:

TT-
It sounds like you would be a great addition to the NY Times' staff. ;):)

Maybe then I could get a date with Maureen Dowd.;)

Google