Is the NY Times into Pedophilia?

Something is not right

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jra.htm
from JoeUser Forums

The NY Times has decided that the investigation of John Roberts' Children, not John Roberts is SOP.  Excuse me?  These kids are 4 and 5 years old!  What do they have to do with the qualification of John Roberts to the Supreme court?  What business is it of the NY Times?  Please, someone show me in the constitution where it says that a nominee to the Supreme court must be investigated by the NY Times, or any member of the media?

And while you are at it, show me where it says a nominee's children should also be investigated?

No, this lame attempt at a smear by the old grey lady is nothing less than rampant pedophilia.  What the hell do they think they are going to find?  That the children hate liver and fuss when made to go to bed?

STOP THE PRESSES

This is just perversion masquerading as news, and not even a good news story at that.  I think it is high time that he editors and the reporters of the NY Times be investigated for pedophilia and other perversions.  It is growing readily apparent that they don't know how to report the news any longer, just to make it.

And since there is no scandal going on right now, they are going to create their own.

Headlines:  Times reporters get nude baby pictures of Roberts' children!

What a bunch of sick animals the times have become.

4,025 views 36 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

The really sick part is the following quote:

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm confused Doc... I must be missing something about the 'case'.... but where is the pedphelia?
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see the pedophelia, either.

It doesn't surprise me about the digging though. It's almost as sick that they style page had to critique the kid's clothes. Probably not metrosexual enough. anyway...

It goes to show how Bush's pick has them skipping and fetching. They desperately want to say "He's a Christian and pro-life, so he can't sit on the bench", but they can't. If they don't come up with some 'he bought his babies' scandal or something, they aren't going to be able to block him with their bigotry.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm confused Doc... I must be missing something about the 'case'.... but where is the pedphelia?

It is implied.  If someone was investigating your children, what would you think about the investigee?  They cannot be investigating scandal or potential crimes.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

It doesn't surprise me about the digging though. It's almost as sick that they style page had to critique the kid's clothes. Probably not metrosexual enough. anyway...

Drop back a moment.  Look at it this way.  You go interview for a new job.  And then the local newspaper, not your employer starts investigating your daughter.  What other conclusion would you draw?  I see nothing that a 4 or 5 year old could have done in their life, nor any revelation that could help them.  I see a lot of predatory aspects to the times behavior.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is implied. If someone was investigating your children, what would you think about the investigee? They cannot be investigating scandal or potential crimes.


I'm not saying that the investigation isn't over the top, because it most certainly is. But I don't think that it implies pedophilia. The NYTimes are investigating the adoptions--of course there could be screwy antics surrounding that (not saying that there are), but, for example, if the adoptions weren't done legally that's a legit thing to know about a potential SCJ.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The NYTimes are investigating the adoptions


God, remember that housekeeper nonsense. Some housekeeper gets paid under the table or has something not right with her immigration, and the nominee gets booted. That got a litte nuts.

You may be right, strings might have been pulled, we won't know until it is looked into. The reporter might have found something that might not have "jived" in some way, perhaps a timeline that did not fit the norm.

I dunno. We will have to see.

IG
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not saying that the investigation isn't over the top, because it most certainly is. But I don't think that it implies pedophilia. The NYTimes are investigating the adoptions--of course there could be screwy antics surrounding that (not saying that there are), but, for example, if the adoptions weren't done legally that's a legit thing to know about a potential SCJ.

Now explain how that helps the children?  So if someone forgot to dot an i on the adoption papers, it is worth these child's ruined lives to drag THEIR names through the dirt? I call that rape.  Maybe not physical, but surely psychological.

Everyone can believe what they want, but if some newspaper started snooping around my children at that young of an age, I would be screaming holy hell.  And Pedophilia would be the mildest charge I would bring.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

You may be right, strings might have been pulled, we won't know until it is looked into. The reporter might have found something that might not have "jived" in some way, perhaps a timeline that did not fit the norm.

Now tell me how that would be: 1 - Illegal, 2 - Good for the CHildren?

A maid is not a child (and it was illegal aliens that got the nominees busted, not that they were paid under the table).  I think it was kind of childish about the maids as well, but that is still like comparing apples to oranges.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now tell me how that would be: 1 - Illegal


It will not be known if anything illegal was done until it is investigated. Could be that nothing was wrong and it was a false lead, or it could be that they were adopted illegally and Roberts used his positoin to influence the process. As I said. It may have to be looked into.

IG
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

It will not be known if anything illegal was done until it is investigated. Could be that nothing was wrong and it was a false lead, or it could be that they were adopted illegally and Roberts used his positoin to influence the process. As I said. It may have to be looked into.

So on the 1 in a milllion chance that someone forgot to dot an I, you would ruin the lives of 2 children?

I hope like hell you are childless.  You are a walking example of what a parent should not be.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
So on the 1 in a milllion chance that someone forgot to dot an I, you would ruin the lives of 2 children?


I'm not talking about forgetting to dot an "i", dr.guy--I'm talking about really illegal stuff (like buying babies on the blackmarket). I'm not saying that it happened, but if you want to be confirmed to one of the highest positions in this country, expect to have your privacy violated.

If nothing was improperly done, there will be no harm, right?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Drudge report says: The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.

The children are not the issue, how Roberts came by them could be.

There is no need to be insulting.


IG
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is one of those 'balancing extremist' situations I mentioned in my article. There's no pedophelia here, and the children's lives aren't 'ruined' by someone looking into their adoption records.

Do I think it is silly and ethically wrong? Yes. Do I equate it to child molestation and all the rest of this overreaction? Nope, and I think it does a lot to defeat a good point.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not talking about forgetting to dot an "i", dr.guy--I'm talking about really illegal stuff (like buying babies on the blackmarket). I'm not saying that it happened, but if you want to be confirmed to one of the highest positions in this country, expect to have your privacy violated.

If nothing was improperly done, there will be no harm, right?

My Privacy?  Sure.  My Children's?  Not part of the deal. So when nothing is found out, and the HARM is already done to them, what do you call?  A do over?  This is about Dotting an I. And it is not the job of the NY Times to investigate. Sorry, I missed the law that empowered them to do that.

This is just a bunch of sick perverted old men and women trying to get their jollies at the expense of 2 innocent children.  Psychological Rape. Pure and simple.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do I think it is silly and ethically wrong? Yes. Do I equate it to child molestation and all the rest of this overreaction? Nope, and I think it does a lot to defeat a good point.

Then you miss the point.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

The children are not the issue, how Roberts came by them could be.

The children are the issue.  That is what you are missing.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Then you miss the point."


Then make your real point. The issue isn't child molestation. Lambast them for invasion of privacy, by all means. Don't make it out to be pedophilia, though, because people rush in to see what is going on, realize there's no pedophelia here, and then brush you off as reactionary.

This is the same thing as the Eichmann/Churchill thing. It is disrespectful to kids who have been molested to equate what they have gone through to a political privacy matter.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Then make your real point.

email me at phillipray2002.com

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Then you miss the point."


We all appear to be missing your point.

No law needs to give the NYTimes the power to investigate--it's what journalist do, and I am sure the stuff they are getting their hands on are a matter of public record.

Would you be this upset if they were looking into another "transaction" that Roberts made to make sure it was on the up and up (say, selling property). I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's what the NY Times is doing--investigating a transaction (the adoption of children) to make sure it was above board. Do I wish they'd spend their time doing something else? Sure. Do I think they are missing out on real news stories? Definitely.

But I still don't get your point.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

No law needs to give the NYTimes the power to investigate--it's what journalist do, and I am sure the stuff they are getting their hands on are a matter of public record.

Actually, no.  They are trying to open court sealed records.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Would you be this upset if they were looking into another "transaction" that Roberts made to make sure it was on the up and up (say, selling property). I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's what the NY Times is doing--investigating a transaction (the adoption of children) to make sure it was above board. Do I wish they'd spend their time doing something else? Sure. Do I think they are missing out on real news stories? Definitely.

Well, if you think of children as property, I can see your point.

I dont think of children as property.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, if you think of children as property, I can see your point.
I dont think of children as property.


Dr. Guy--this will be my last comment on the matter because I believe you are being deliberatively obtuse. I didn't say that children were property--I said (and admited it was a harsh comparison) that an adoption is a legal transaction--do you disagree with that?

You seem to have this idea that because you've procreated you are more entitled to opinions than anyone else--you have repeatedly made comments such as "if you had kids" or "glad you don't have kids" or whatever--it's a nonstarter as far as I am concerned. I am just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours--there are plenty of people out there who have spread their seed and are completely unfit to inhabit the earth--so please, do not assume that simply because you have a child you are somehow superior to the rest of the world.

Actually, no. They are trying to open court sealed records

And I would imagine they are going about it legally? As in a judge will have to decide? What's the big deal?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
You seem to have this idea that because you've procreated you are more entitled to opinions than anyone else--you have repeatedly made comments such as "if you had kids" or "glad you don't have kids" or whatever--it's a nonstarter as far as I am concerned. I am just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours


Actually, it is you being obtuse. While I admit to those comments, I did not say you could not opine on the subject. I dont know if you can procreate or not, and that is none of my business.

But I do have a real problem with comparing a child to buying property. Simply put, they are not property, and the comparison is specious.

Since you have decided to leave it at that, I will leave it at this.

What gives them the right to try to destroy 2 children's lives for their feigned glory? Whether the transactions are legal or illegal, you want to investigate something? Investigate allegations of child abuse. but, oh excuse me, there are none.

"Mommy, why is that reporter saying you bought me?"

Nice bed time story, eh? When you take the humanity out of the equation, you are right. Dont do that with post partum fetuses.