New York Times article on Bush's speech incoherence

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tsu
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
22 replies · 4K views
Tsu
Gold Member
Messages
462
Reaction score
62
...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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

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.
 
*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 ! :confused:
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
*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! ;)
 
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.
 
PRBot.Com said:
LOL! The times is a JOKE!
If it's written in capitol letters, it MUST BE TRUE! LOLZ0R `*(^_^)*`
 
PRBot.Com said:
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 said:
Now now, progressive! PROGRESSIVE!
So long as Bill O'Reilly gets to be a "Traditionalist", why the hell not?
 
PRBot.Com said:
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.
 
PRBot.Com said:
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.
 
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.
 
Tsunami said:
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. :-p

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.
 
Last edited:
...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. :biggrin:
 
Tsunami said:
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! :smile:
 
Last edited:
God help me! russ and I agree! :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Original new york times article announcing Einstein's successful test of GR
  • robertjford80
  • · Replies 3 ·
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
New York Times article on dark matter and energy
  • Thrice
  • · Replies 2 ·
  • Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology
Replies
2