Dr Guy Dr Guy

Is the NY Times into Pedophilia?

▼

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.

4,026 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
"What gives them the right to try to destroy 2 children's lives for their feigned glory?"


There's the "destroy" thing again...
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
First let me start by saying I'm no father. But I do see where Dr. Guy is coming from. Though I'm not sure about using the word "pedophilia".

About a year ago a close friend of mine and I were talking. I asked her how her relationship with her co-worker was going. She told me that it was over between them. They had been talking for awhile - at work , phoning and e-mailing each other. They even had done the dinner and movie thing.

I asked what happened. She told me that one day they went to lunch together and she had taken her 5-year old son. They sat down at a booth, ordered and were waiting for their food discussing work. Meantime her son was under the table playing with some little toy cars she brought to keep him from getting bored.

When the food came she told him to come up and eat. Her date said, "Come on now. Listen to your mother." She told her date that she had it under control and looked under the table. Her son was trying to reach for one of his cars that had rolled too far under the seats. Her date said in a louder tone than before, "I said come on now. Get out of there and sit next to your mother."

Well my friend got up, grabbed her son and walked out the restaurant. She said she hasn't talk to him since. She asked me if I thought if she went too far or overreacted. I told her I thought she did. Then she said,"You're always talking about your little nieces so I know you love them. Suppose your date said something like that to your nieces?" I had nothing to say then. Point well taken. She was right. My reaction may not have been as extreme but would have been similiar.

I say all this because I think Dr. Guy is basing his words as a father and a father only. How HE would feel if it was HIS kids being looked into by the NY Times. Again would my reaction be that extreme to use the word "pedophilia". Maybe not. But I do see where he is coming from.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's the "destroy" thing again...


if you have not been there, you dont know how it comes down. Email me for the whole story
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
this hardly compares to what your own dear leader and his turdblossom architect did to mccain in 2000, using a push poll to create the impression that mccain had a black child out of wedlock. in fact, sen mccain and his wife had adopted a bangladeshi orphan who was traveling with them on that leg of the primary campaign.

surprise me and tell me how outraged you were when that came to light.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
this hardly compares to what your own dear leader and his turdblossom architect did to mccain in 2000, using a push poll to create the impression that mccain had a black child out of wedlock. in fact, sen mccain and his wife had adopted a bangladeshi orphan who was traveling with them on that leg of the primary campaign.

surprise me and tell me how outraged you were when that came to light.


Prove it first. WHy should I defend or even respond to unfounded allegations?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Prove it first. WHy should I defend or even respond to unfounded allegations?


prove it happened? notta problem. there's no question someone tried to use that little girl to hurt mccain.

if you don't believe it now, you wont believe it when i document it. more to the point, you've just made it very obvious your outrage has little to do with adults mixing kids up in their battles...unless you perceive the kids to be on your side.
Reply #32 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.


Yes they do and adoptions are NOT public record. Just try to access someones adoption record and see what kind of stone wall you hit!
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?


There is no "legally" about it. Those records are sealed and there is NO reason at all to look into them! If he "obtained" the children illegally (black market) then there would be no records would there? Last I knew, people who are into the black market frown on legal records.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

if you don't believe it now, you wont believe it when i document it. more to the point, you've just made it very obvious your outrage has little to do with adults mixing kids up in their battles...unless you perceive the kids to be on your side.

Nice try at deflection.  Want to answer the point or just throw out more unfounded allegations?

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes they do and adoptions are NOT public record. Just try to access someones adoption record and see what kind of stone wall you hit!

Ah, but the times is above the law.  Have we not seen that with the Miller case?  Laws are for the unwashed rabble, not the old grey lady herself.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is no "legally" about it. Those records are sealed and there is NO reason at all to look into them! If he "obtained" the children illegally (black market) then there would be no records would there? Last I knew, people who are into the black market frown on legal records.

The press has already opened sealed records.  Remember Congressman Ryan?