New York Times: Bush was utterly incoherant

[Tsu]

...the president was utterly incoherent when asked about whom he might name to the Supreme Court in a second term. His comment about how he didn't want to offend any judges because he wanted "them all voting for me" was a joke - but an unfortunate one, given the fact that the president owes his job to a Supreme Court vote.

Original article from the NY Times. Site linked is a non-registration site.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101004Y.shtml

 

[PRBot.Com]

NY Times is a left wind propaganda machine. Nobody really cares what they have to say except the socialists who like to be fed what they already believe and support anyway.

 

[Gokul43201]

*Yeah, it's just a pity that the Times is one of the few newspapers around that does any real journalism.* It's also strange that the Times gets quoted more often than any other paper, by news services around the country. Why, I've seen Fox News quoting from the Times on numerous occasions. I wonder why they believe all the bull$#!t written in the Times !

 

[member 5645]

*Yeah, it's just a pity that the Times is one of the few newspapers around that does any real journalism.*

They always get the first stories too...even if they have to make it up! ;)

 

[PRBot.Com]

LOL! The times is a JOKE!

 

[Gokul43201]

LOL! Ayn Rand was a neurotic NUTTER.

 

[The_Professional]

In my previous political science class we were encouraged to read the NY times. The professor would assign a topic and really pick our brains on it, which is a very effective way of encouraging us to be really critical and analytic. He also rarely talked about his democratic views to anybody unless he's asked what he thinks.

 

[wasteofo2]

LOL! The times is a JOKE!

If it's written in capitol letters, it MUST BE TRUE! LOLZ0R `*(^_^)*`

 

[PRBot.Com]

If you are a socialist you will obviously LOVE the NYT :D

 

[wasteofo2]

If you are a socialist you will obviously LOVE the NYT :D

*~(^_^)~*
R3/\114? 1 540|_|d 574R7 R34D1/\/6 17 743/\/!1

Can you please shut up with the stupid rhetoric and try to remain somewhat intelligent? Anyone can say "If you're (negative adjective), you'll love (something)", it doesn't mean it's worth saying or an intelligent thing to say.

Check it out:

If you're a fascist scumbag who hates people and only cares about money, you'll love laizzes fair capitalism :D:D:D:D:D:D

Did that statement do anything besides prompt you to respond with some other mindless bull****? I doubt it.

 

[kat]

Now now, progressive! PROGRESSIVE!

 

[PRBot.Com]

hehehehehe!

You are what your user name suggests, IMHO :D waste of 02 :D

 

[wasteofo2]

Now now, progressive! PROGRESSIVE!

So long as Bill O'Reilly gets to be a "Traditionalist", why the hell not?

 

[wasteofo2]

hehehehehe!

You are what your user name suggests, IMHO :D waste of 02 :D

HAHAHAHHEHHEHEHTEHEHEHOHOHOHOHOOHOOHOOHAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!

Do you have any idea how unoriginal that comment was? The only reason I even use this retarted name is to see how many people will be unoriginal enough to try to insult me with it.

 

[Moonbear]

NY Times is a left wind propaganda machine. Nobody really cares what they have to say except the socialists who like to be fed what they already believe and support anyway.

So, I take it you didn't actually bother to follow the link? If you had, you'd see that the article was appropriately placed in the Editorials section. And if you watched the debate, you'd have seen that Bush very clearly stated he had given no thought about who he might appoint to the Supreme Court if the opportunity arose, and then stalled for time with a horribly awkward joke. As president, he should have a few ideas in mind! It is another demonstration that he is reactive, not proactive, in the way he runs the country.

 

[russ_watters]

I won't comment on the Times as a news source, its irrelevant here: that specific article was an editorial.

 

[Tsu]

I thought you weren't going to comment.

 

[Mercator]

It's funny to see how some people label a paper that would be considered conservative by 90 % of the world's population as "socialist" if there is any critical article in it. And since some people here do not make the difference between socialism and communism,: do the time's reporters wear Mao suits? Anyway, according to this "logic" Bush has a communist ally: Blair.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought you weren't going to comment.

Huh? I said I wasn't going to comment on the Times as a news source. The article was not a news article so it doesn't say anything about how the Times covers news. Anyway, saying that it was an editorial is a factual observation, not a comment.

But to clarify a little more, now I will comment on the Times as a news source: when reporting the news, most mainstream news sources are pretty similar - most are slightly left leaning, but none are all that bad. The CBS flap, notwithstanding.

 

[Tsu]

...now I will comment on the Times as a news source

Careful, russ. Now you're flip-flopping.
Your point is moot. The NY Times is a worldwide publication that is well read and well respected by MANY people. The word gets out.

 

[russ_watters]

Careful, russ. Now you're flip-flopping.

Heh, fair enough. I figure its justified to clarify an apparent misinterpretaton of my point.

Your point is moot.

Yep, that's my point - now you're getting it. Whether or not the Times is a good news source is moot since the article posted is not a news article.

The NY Times is a worldwide publication that is well read and well respected by MANY people.

Agreed - that's what I said (though more generally) in my last post. But like you said - that's moot!

 

[Tsu]

God help me! russ and I agree!

 

[russ_watters]

God help me! russ and I agree!

You're starting to turn me on.