http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us....html?_r=1&sq=

"Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
news:gh4c37$nok$1@news.albasani.net...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us....html?_r=1&sq=
>


Would you say that was a piece of reasonably balanced journalism?

On 2008-12-02 14:38:41 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:

> "Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
> news:gh4c37$nok$1@news.albasani.net...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us....html?_r=1&sq=
>>
>
>
> Would you say that was a piece of reasonably balanced journalism?

I can tell you it was surprising as hell.

Now, I've got a surprise for you. I got that story via
www.timeswatch.org, a web site that keeps an eye on the Gray Lady.

They gave them full credit for the balance of that piece. So the site
isn't just dedicated to pointing out the left-wing bias, which has been
admitted by those in the know.

In article <gh4c37$nok$1@news.albasani.net>,
Conscience <nobama@gov.com> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us....html?_r=1&sq=

Holder will be a problem for gun owners. He has placed himself firmly
against 2nd amend modern interpretations. I predict that after the
economy rights itself and the dust settles, there will be a couple or
maybe three high court retirees, obama will pick liberal anti-gun
judges. There will then be a challenge from this fellow Holder and his
department as to the *real* meaning of the second. Ultimately a new
look will emerge. Gun owners and the NRA may not be very happy.
--


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

On 2008-12-02 14:50:23 -0800, dbu' <nospam@nobama.com> said:

> In article <gh4c37$nok$1@news.albasani.net>,
> Conscience <nobama@gov.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us....html?_r=1&sq=
>
> Holder will be a problem for gun owners. He has placed himself firmly
> against 2nd amend modern interpretations. I predict that after the
> economy rights itself and the dust settles, there will be a couple or
> maybe three high court retirees, obama will pick liberal anti-gun
> judges. There will then be a challenge from this fellow Holder and his
> department as to the *real* meaning of the second. Ultimately a new
> look will emerge. Gun owners and the NRA may not be very happy.

Any new justices would have a problem. They would have to say that the
SCOTUS was incorrect in their ruling that the Second Amendment pertains
to the rights of the individual, just like the other nine in the Bill
of Rights. Though logic dictates this to be so, any new justice isn't
likely to go against a decision such as was made recently.

I do fear for the Constitution, generally speaking, should the left
regain a majority. Living document indeed.

"Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
news:gh4e2p$pnq$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-12-02 14:38:41 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:
>
>> "Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
>> news:gh4c37$nok$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us....html?_r=1&sq=
>>>
>>
>>
>> Would you say that was a piece of reasonably balanced journalism?
>
> I can tell you it was surprising as hell.
>
> Now, I've got a surprise for you. I got that story via
> www.timeswatch.org, a web site that keeps an eye on the Gray Lady.
>
> They gave them full credit for the balance of that piece. So the site
> isn't just dedicated to pointing out the left-wing bias, which has been
> admitted by those in the know.
>

I was curious because Hack (aka "Hach") loves to say all (his word) of the
NYT's news is biased.

All.

"Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
news:gh4qav$674$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-12-02 18:14:48 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:
>
>> "Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
>> news:gh4e2p$pnq$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 2008-12-02 14:38:41 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:
>>>
>>>> "Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gh4c37$nok$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us....html?_r=1&sq=
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would you say that was a piece of reasonably balanced journalism?
>>>
>>> I can tell you it was surprising as hell.
>>>
>>> Now, I've got a surprise for you. I got that story via
>>> www.timeswatch.org, a web site that keeps an eye on the Gray Lady.
>>>
>>> They gave them full credit for the balance of that piece. So the site
>>> isn't just dedicated to pointing out the left-wing bias, which has been
>>> admitted by those in the know.
>>>
>>
>> I was curious because Hack (aka "Hach") loves to say all (his word) of
>> the
>> NYT's news is biased.
>>
>> All.
>
> I don't think all of the NYT's news is biased any more than some idiot
> claiming that Fox News is right-wing.
>

Good. Next time he whines about it, I'll pass him off to you. :-) I don't
recall if it was him, or one of the other automatons who once said "Show me
any NYT article and I'll show you the bias." So, I provided articles like
this:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ider-wont-pay/
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/ny...l?ref=nyregion
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/te...ref=technology
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/ga...tml?ref=garden
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/op...tml?ref=dining

No need to read more than the first line of each to see how silly the
automaton was for saying "Show me any..."