Is the NY Times really that Stupid?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/opinion/08sun1.html?ex=1294376400&en=5902a22091a21ffe&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
from JoeUser Forums

In an editorial last week, the NY Times, always 'unbiased', tried to change the constitution, and in so doing, came across looking like a bunch of fools:

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around Judge Alito's confirmation. But the public is skeptical. In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do.

Now many conservatives and right to lifers have been railing against Roe V Wade for the last 30 years.  But no Jurist sitting on the bench anywhere in this country has the ability to make abortion illegal!  Indeed, before Roe v. Wade, Abortion WAS legal, just not in every state.  And as has been pointed out on JU before, over turning Roe V. Wade would not by fiat make abortion automatically illegal.  It would just then allow laws that predated the ruling to once again go into force, which means that in only 15 states would it be illegal, while in 35 it would still be legal.

Now I understand that the 'average' American does not follow politics close enough to understand what Roe V Wade is all about.  But for a major Newspaper to be so ignorant, and to display its ignorance in black and white is sheer incompetence!  Or, worse, pure propaganda.

In either case it is a bald face lie, and one so blatant one cannot help but assume that the management of the Times are either liars, Pro Abortion Stooges, or incompetent. Or all 3.

Given their record of late, I would vote for the latter.

3,486 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

If the experts are right, some time this month, perhaps somewhere in the suburban South or West, a couple, most likely white Anglo-Saxon Protestants or Hispanic, will conceive a baby who, when born in October, will become the 300 millionth American - NY Times, Jan 13, 2006

So is the times now admitting that they are babies, and not just a mass of amlagamated tissue?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
In an editorial last week, the NY Times, always 'unbiased', tried to change the constitution, and in so doing, came across looking like a bunch of fools:

I guess someone needs to state the obvious. The article was an editorial, not a news story.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I guess someone needs to state the obvious. The article was an editorial, not a news story.

So they can change the constitution in an editorial and that is ok?  Your repsonse is non-sequitar.  NO one claimed it was a news story.  But even an editorial has to be rooted in fact.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're seeing things that are not there. They weren't saying that he could, on his own, make abortion illegal. They're saying he would cast a vote to make it illegal. I think the average reader gets the gist of what they're saying. If they were implying that he could do it on his own they probably would have phrased it as "he would make it illegal".
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, it's not a case of his vote making it illegal. It would be his vote for, or against, allowing the states to decide for themselves whether it should legal IN THAT STATE.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

Too many people, on both sides of the issue, read more into a decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's just not there.

There's also the fact that they have to have a case before them before they can make that decision (keep or kill). Without a case to decide that falls under the effects of Roe v. Wade, it will stand. Who knows? It might never come to a head. Not that I'm holding my breath on that one, but it's always a possibility.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
In a word...














YES.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

They weren't saying that he could, on his own, make abortion illegal.

Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do.[/quote]

Now show me where I stated the he could, on his own?  Clearly, as they stated, Read the bold part!

What part of that do you not understand?

he cant!

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again, it's not a case of his vote making it illegal. It would be his vote for, or against, allowing the states to decide for themselves whether it should legal IN THAT STATE.

You get what the liberals do not, nor does the NY Times.  But you would expect for them to at least try to get it right!

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

In a word...

A lady of few words!  But more accurate than the Gray old Lady!

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

They're saying he would cast a vote to make it illegal.

You like being wrong.  You are as wrong, as the NY times!  I will leave you to pick which one of the 3 you are.

He cannot cast a vote to make it illegal.  PERIOD.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
You like being wrong. You are as wrong, as the NY times! I will leave you to pick which one of the 3 you are.

He cannot cast a vote to make it illegal. PERIOD.


Play word games all you want, but someone would have to be mentally challenged to not be able to see the intent of what they were saying.

I don't care whether you think I'm wrong or not. It doesn't kill me to admit that I'm wrong every now and then. I would rather be wrong occasionally than be a coward like you who will never admit to being wrong/and or lying. Case in point...the thread about FISA rejecting a warrant request regarding Moussaoui.

Back the topic at hand...

So they can change the constitution in an editorial and that is ok? Your repsonse is non-sequitar. NO one claimed it was a news story. But even an editorial has to be rooted in fact.


I don't really think they have "changed the constitution". It's just an editorial, not a consitutional amendment. It IS "rooted" in fact...there are lots of facts in there, along with some of their opinion.

ed·i·to·ri·al Audio pronunciation of "editorial" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tôr-l, -tr-)
n.

1. An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.
2. A commentary on television or radio expressing the opinion of the station or network.

Don't see anything there about it being rooted in fact though.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Play word games all you want, but someone would have to be mentally challenged to not be able to see the intent of what they were saying.

I don't care whether you think I'm wrong or not. It doesn't kill me to admit that I'm wrong every now and then. I would rather be wrong occasionally than be a coward like you who will never admit to being wrong/and or lying. Case in point...the thread about FISA rejecting a warrant request regarding Moussaoui


Just keep running your mouth and see how fast you get b/l accross the board. And if you say you don't really care, then by al means leave. What you've just said would be considered a personal attack!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just keep running your mouth and see how fast you get b/l accross the board. And if you say you don't really care, then by al means leave. What you've just said would be considered a personal attack!


I was responding to the comment he made about me but, if anyone would know a "personal attack", it would be you. What's with you and all the personal attack talk lately? You made you the judge around here? You should try to keep things on topic.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way....the article quoted the text of the poll regarding making abortion illegal. The question asked in the poll is;

"If you thought that Judge Alito, if confirmed, would vote to make abortions illegal, would you favor or oppose his confirmation?"

So why fault them for that and not the pollsters?

Link
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Play word games all you want, but someone would have to be mentally challenged to not be able to see the intent of what they were saying.

No, you are the one playing word games.  The TRUTH is as stated.  Deny it!  Please!  But you cannot.  Instead now, as usual, you are trying to change the subject.  But, no, I will not let you.  Please show me the errors here?  not the intent as you percieve it (since unless you work for the times, you dont KNOW it).

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't care whether you think I'm wrong or not. It doesn't kill me to admit that I'm wrong every now and then. I would rather be wrong occasionally than be a coward like you who will never admit to being wrong/and or lying. Case in point...the thread about FISA rejecting a warrant request regarding Moussaoui.

No, again, I have admitted when I was wrong.  And again you changed the topic to try to show me I was wrong, when that was not my thesis.  I dont think you are wrong.  I have documentable proof that you are wrong!  Your own words!  If you want to debate, debate the topic, not what you want the topic to be!  You are wrong on this and Moussaoui!  As I have proven.  I am sure you can and did rephrase the issue so you could claim victory, but that is your issue, not mine.  You want to debate here, do it on the topic, not your perception of what you have no clue on.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

don't really think they have "changed the constitution".

No they cannot.  So quit with the snipping!  If you followed the whole thread you would know that he was arguing that it was correct, because it was an editorial.  I shot that down.  Now do you want to debate the issue. or turn it again?

And for the love of god, why are you even here?  You hate me?  You swore never to darken my blog again (need I post a link to that?).  And yet you have not changed.  you still cannot debate the topic, until you rewrite the topic.  Sorry Teddy, you are not going to get away with it here.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just keep running your mouth and see how fast you get b/l accross the board. And if you say you don't really care, then by al means leave. What you've just said would be considered a personal attack!

No, unlike others, he is so easy to shoot down.  I almost feel guilty for shooting the deer in the headlights!  He can post, but he will not change the topic, because I will always drag him back to it.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

You should try to keep things on topic.

is this the pot or kettle!  You are incapable of it!  You have not posted on topic yet!  Just tried to spin the lies!

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

By the way....the article quoted the text of the poll regarding making abortion illegal. The question asked in the poll is;

"If you thought that Judge Alito, if confirmed, would vote to make abortions illegal, would you favor or oppose his confirmation?"

So why fault them for that and not the pollsters?

I already provided the link, and thank you for your first post on topic.

So if I ask the question "is the moon made of green cheese", then I could be forgiven for saying "I know it is"?  We are talking about what the idiots at the times said!  Not what an idiot pollster said.  They shouild know (do you?) that he cannot make it illegal, regardless of what some mushbrain asked in a stupid poll!  Yet they said "he might do".

This article stands.  your spin loses.  As does the idiotic NY Times,

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Teddy, you are not going to get away with it here.


As you can clearly see...Teddy is not my name. I've not resorted to your childish games of giving people nicknames. I could think of some cute ones for you if you want though.

This article stands. your spin loses. As does the idiotic NY Times


What is it with you and winning/losing all the time? The thing that aggravates me the most about you and your articles is that you think you're smarter than everyone. Everyone who disagrees with you or your articles if just not smart enough to see the "facts" that you're presenting. Do you really, genuinely think that the person who wrote that article in the Times is stupid enough to think that they can "change the constitution", as you put it? You can disagree with their ideology, but do you really think they think Alito can make abortion illegal all on his own?

I don't really think you'll answer any of these questions, you never do...you just shout back more insults usually instead of having a genuine exchange.

I already provided the link, and thank you for your first post on topic.


This is a perfect example of your rhetoric. If you look back, you will see than I made several comments that were on topic before that one.

You're seeing things that are not there. They weren't saying that he could, on his own, make abortion illegal. They're saying he would cast a vote to make it illegal. I think the average reader gets the gist of what they're saying. If they were implying that he could do it on his own they probably would have phrased it as "he would make it illegal".


That was my first post on this thread. How was that off-topic? How was that trying to change the argument?

In all seriousness, why do you post here on JU? Is it just to post stories and then gather in like minded people to agree with you? Why do you have to be so arrogant and insulting to people just because they disagree with your take on things?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they were implying that he could do it on his own they probably would have phrased it as "he would make it illegal".
good point

Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do. I'm one of the 70 percent, but for more reasons than Roe v Wade.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they were implying that he could do it on his own they probably would have phrased it as "he would make it illegal".
good point

Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do. I'm one of the 70 percent, but for more reasons than Roe v Wade.


Well you can opose it if you wish....not that it'll do you much good. It has already been said that if the left tries anything silly that the republicans will bring out the nuke option. After that he'll be in. On the other hand I'd like to know "why" you would oppose his nomination?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

The thing that aggravates me the most about you and your articles is that you think you're smarter than everyone.

No, just more read.  learn the difference, and get that chip off your shoulder!

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

In all seriousness, why do you post here on JU? Is it just to post stories and then gather in like minded people to agree with you? Why do you have to be so arrogant and insulting to people just because they disagree with your take on things?

First, I do not gather in like minded people.  You owe Stevendedalus, Thatoneguy, and kingbee an appology, which you seem to be bereft of.  Second, I am not arrogant and insulting unless the poster is.  You are welcome.

I do not agree with Kingbee much, but I respect him.  I agree with stevendedalus on about 2 things, yet I respect him very much.  I respect thatoneguy, shades, iconoclast, and many of our downunder and up north liberals as well.  They are courteous, combative and honest.

you are just the middle.  you insult, degrade and pretende you know everything, with no links, we are to believe you on your opinion alone!  After all you are god, and who should question your wisdom?

You slammed me for posting a link and then commenting on the link.  Sorry, this is a Blog, not the AP (and in point of fact at least more accurate than those bozos).  You got petulant and said you were never coming back.  yet you constantly do.  betraying you lie.

And then you jump on other blogs and insult the owner!  Such arrogance!

No, I am none of what you accuse me of.  you are merely looking into a mirror.  And you can now go suck up to your new found friend Little_whip.  She will love you since you hate me.  Just like Schlob Loved Frodo.

But dont point a finger at me, and then pontificate.  For the 3 fingers pointing at you are the real pointers in your case.