Comments on: New York Times Hopes For SCOTUS Gun Grab http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/12/02/new-york-times-hopes-for-scotus-gun-grab/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:39:56 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: CaptDMO http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/12/02/new-york-times-hopes-for-scotus-gun-grab/comment-page-1/#comment-55584 CaptDMO Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:50:05 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/12/02/new-york-times-hopes-for-scotus-gun-grab/#comment-55584 Strangely, I've recently gotten back to Indoctorinate U. I'm fairly sure Mr. Horowitz would have me skinned for comparing the communist leftist assaults on the Academic Freedom concept to the editorial policies of NYT on reason, but I just can't see the difference when dupes that deign to call themselves progressive enjoin with "the big, and simply oft echoed, lie". Of course NYT has no claim to ANY "academic" nature, and "editorials" would be far easier to address if a name was attached to them. One can only assume an ulterior motive of NYT to enter into a debate it's not qualified to opine on. I also have to hold up a stereoscope when considering the <i>un-elected</i> status of the SCOTUS. By appointment, yet subject to approval, or disapproval, of a legislature whos integrity is in constant flux, and based on the fickle nature of issues proclaimed "important" by the influence and omission of the media. Yep, that Times Select thing sure announced the desperate death rattle of a dead tree tabloid that caters to an anticipated homoflatulant bouquet of a dwindling "elite". Strangely, I’ve recently gotten back to Indoctorinate U.
I’m fairly sure Mr. Horowitz would have me skinned for comparing
the communist leftist assaults on the Academic Freedom concept
to the editorial policies of NYT on reason, but I just can’t see the difference
when dupes that deign to call themselves progressive enjoin with “the big, and simply oft echoed, lie”.
Of course NYT has no claim to ANY “academic” nature, and “editorials” would be
far easier to address if a name was attached to them.

One can only assume an ulterior motive of NYT to enter into a debate it’s not qualified
to opine on. I also have to hold up a stereoscope when considering the un-elected status of the SCOTUS. By appointment, yet subject to approval,
or disapproval, of a legislature whos integrity is in constant flux, and based on the fickle nature of issues proclaimed “important” by the influence and omission of the media.

Yep, that Times Select thing sure announced the desperate death rattle of a dead tree tabloid that caters to an anticipated homoflatulant bouquet of a dwindling “elite”.

]]>