More spin by the NY Times

[5LiterMustang]

NY times is a joke, they're horrible...
The NY times is always running anti conservative, anti republican, anti american and pro socialist stories and they take unproven "facts" put them on the front page then three or four days later run a retraction on page 4,000 so no one sees it. Gotta love the idiots running that paper.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
NY times is a joke, they're horrible...
The NY times is always running anti conservative, anti republican, anti american and pro socialist stories and they take unproven "facts" put them on the front page then three or four days later run a retraction on page 4,000 so no one sees it. Gotta love the idiots running that paper.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about Paul Krugman 🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I wasn't sure if you meant he was fired so he would spill or because he did, probably because I don't see any spilled beans.

Of course you don't see beans in your mirror, Moonie; thus, I used the "proverbial" caveat before the beans. You only see what you want to see--beans or no beans.

All proverbial means is that the saying's been around a while. The word doesn't imply that the beans are 'arguable' or a caveat of any kind. And of course, if you had wished to imply that the beans were arguably beans, it is you who sees what you want to since you create the options and acknowledge they exist.

There are no beans.

But that the gas fired for spinning these non existent beans is the link I want to see. I couldn't fine it. Perhaps it is like the beans but about that I do not know.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
NY times is a joke, they're horrible...
The NY times is always running anti conservative, anti republican, anti american and pro socialist stories and they take unproven "facts" put them on the front page then three or four days later run a retraction on page 4,000 so no one sees it. Gotta love the idiots running that paper.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about Paul Krugman 🙂

lol, about the only thing I can stand reading are the washington post/times and the wall street journal...I read the others but man its pretty crappy reading in my opinion. In school I was required to read the LA and NY times on a daily basis and it was amazing how much spin they could put on a story or make up some bogus crap and then retract it a few days later in the back of the paper.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

lol, about the only thing I can stand reading are the washington post/times and the wall street journal...I read the others but man its pretty crappy reading in my opinion. In school I was required to read the LA and NY times on a daily basis and it was amazing how much spin they could put on a story or make up some bogus crap and then retract it a few days later in the back of the paper.

The Washington Times is pretty impressive. I have had a number of op-eds published, and they have called me twice after checking my statistics cited...had one wrong (said like 35% and it was 36.9%) and they forced me to send in revisions...they apologized, and I replied, "No problem; this is what separates you from the other trash out there." I was quite impressed.

 

[nageov3t]

obviously, any media organization that dares to find fault in the military or executive branch of the government must be a leftist rag. :frown:

burn the newspapers and turn the station to fox news! FN is the only news source we can trust for unbiased reporting anymore.

besides, why are we wasting time criticizing the military when poor Natalee Holloway is missing? *shakes his fist at nyt.com*