*New York Slimes/Times: Tanking, Hehehehe,.....*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Seems like BJ Clinton is nothing but a PJW.
2. *Private Jet Whore*.
3. Thats shows what type of person this low life is.
4. Total lack of integrity.
5. I would say his integrity was on the floor, but there is no sign he even has it in the first place.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[red states rule]

Sorry bout that,

1. Seems like BJ Clinton is nothing but a PJW.
2. *Private Jet Whore*.
3. Thats shows what type of person this low life is.
4. Total lack of integrity.
5. I would say his integrity was on the floor, but there is no sign he even has it in the first place.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

It is called the objective liberal journalism

Circle the wagons around the Dems while unleashing any attack possible on a Republican

[diuretic]

For years the NY Times has been trying to attract conservatives by adopting a conservative bias. Now it's having an effect. Liberals are leaving and most conservatives can't read so the paper is facing hard times.

Maybe they could use bigger print and smaller words????

[red states rule]

Maybe they could use bigger print and smaller words????

That would help the Obama followers understand what the DNC Times publishes

Both Obama and the DNC Times never mix specifics and facts in their talking points

[glockmail]

Proof? Newspapers don't have to prove anything. Newspapers are supposed to report facts their readers would like have. The Times did and now the world knows more about McCain's willingness to trade political influence for whatever has value.

You are one stoopid dude.

[avatar4321]

Conservative bias - my you are really full of it today

Keep in mind, he supports Ralph Nader. His biases blind him to facts. But that's true of most people isnt it?

[avatar4321]

Proof? Newspapers don't have to prove anything. Newspapers are supposed to report facts their readers would like have. The Times did and now the world knows more about McCain's willingness to trade political influence for whatever has value.

Actually, newspapers are supposed to print facts period. Whether people like them or not is irrelevant. Because the news is facts. The news is what happened.

So yes, they do have to prove something. Otherwise they aren't facts.

[Joe Steel]

You are one stoopid dude.

What's you point, dumbass?

[Joe Steel]

Actually, newspapers are supposed to print facts period. Whether people like them or not is irrelevant. Because the news is facts. The news is what happened.

So yes, they do have to prove something. Otherwise they aren't facts.

I didn't say "like them." I meant to say "like (to) have." There's a big difference.

Proof comes from argument not mere facts.

[avatar4321]

I didn't say "like them." I meant to say "like (to) have." There's a big difference.

Proof comes from argument not mere facts.

Using innuendo to slander others is not fact nor proof.

[glockmail]

What's you point, dumbass?

That you are one stoopid dude. Thanks for proving it yet again.

[Kathianne]

Just to gloat a bit:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/new_...ny_shakeup.php

The New York Times published the shoddy McCain-Iseman story the very same day the Sulzberger family fought to stave off an attempt on behalf of investors to alter the board of directors at the NY Times Company. Coincidence? Craig Karpel doesn’t think so....

There is a lot more...

[manu1959]

I didn't say "like them." I meant to say "like (to) have." There's a big difference.

Proof comes from argument not mere facts.

facts do not need to be defend with arguments....facts speak for themsleves....

[Yurt]

facts do not need to be defend with arguments....facts speak for themsleves....

what about adjucated facts?