Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New York Times: Bush was utterly incoherant

  1. Oct 12, 2004 #1

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101004Y.shtml
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 12, 2004 #2
    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.
     
  4. Oct 12, 2004 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    *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: Oct 12, 2004
  5. Oct 12, 2004 #4
    They always get the first stories too.....even if they have to make it up! ;)
     
  6. Oct 12, 2004 #5
    LOL! The times is a JOKE!
     
  7. Oct 12, 2004 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    LOL! Ayn Rand was a neurotic NUTTER.
     
  8. Oct 12, 2004 #7
    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.
     
  9. Oct 12, 2004 #8
    If it's written in capitol letters, it MUST BE TRUE! LOLZ0R `*(^_^)*`
     
  10. Oct 12, 2004 #9
    If you are a socialist you will obviously LOVE the NYT :D
     
  11. Oct 12, 2004 #10
    *~(^_^)~*
    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.
     
  12. Oct 12, 2004 #11

    kat

    User Avatar

    Now now, progressive! PROGRESSIVE!
     
  13. Oct 12, 2004 #12
    hehehehehe!

    You are what your user name suggests, IMHO :D waste of 02 :D
     
  14. Oct 12, 2004 #13
    So long as Bill O'Reilly gets to be a "Traditionalist", why the hell not?
     
  15. Oct 12, 2004 #14
    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.
     
  16. Oct 12, 2004 #15

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. Oct 13, 2004 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I won't comment on the Times as a news source, its irrelevant here: that specific article was an editorial.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
  18. Oct 13, 2004 #17

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I thought you weren't going to comment.
     
  19. Oct 13, 2004 #18
    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.
     
  20. Oct 13, 2004 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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. :tongue2:

    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: Oct 13, 2004
  21. Oct 13, 2004 #20

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: New York Times: Bush was utterly incoherant
Loading...