Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (163999)	7/24/2001 2:46:13 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Read it again. The NYTimes ascribes political motives to those who happen to think rationally. How inconvenient for them that such people exist. POOR DON VAN NATTA: And Joe Lelyveld as well. All that money, months of investigation, a dozen reporters assigned fulltime to the case ... and all they got was this lousy non-story. Bottom line: there was no electoral fraud in Florida; there was "no support for the suspicions of Democrats that the Bush campaign had organized an effort to solicit late votes"; the Bush people were no more aggressive in getting their military ballots counted in Florida than the Gore team was in getting recounts in favored counties; the Bushies' military ballot success would have made no difference to the final result. Surely an A12 story. Perhaps Joe Lelyveld was trying to make this his breathless, show-stopping finale. But he has such a glittering career, it would have been better for him to have given this non-event the placement it deserved, rather than fronting it all over the front page and yards and yards within. The Times is now surely on a knife-edge of credibility. It's still the best paper in the world - and I'm proud to contribute to its magazine. But if it keeps blaring non-stories like this to appease its leftist Manhattan base, and maintains its close to unanimous chorus of editorial and op-ed hostility to president Bush, it will become less authoritative. People like me who care about it and groan about some of its obvious news bias will simply stop reading it. Or, worse, we'll start assuming it's propaganda until proven otherwise. andrewsullivan.com

To: Neocon who wrote (163999)	7/24/2001 3:08:30 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>>>>somewhat tilted, is not egregious I consider saying something is in spite of the fact that it can't be proved is egregious. Discounting the fact that the proof is based on fabricated model science is egregious. It's true because you can't proof the faulty model that say it's true are totally false. That's egregious. Now you want to spend what percent of the GDP to fix this???? That's egregious. President Bush is a renegade because he think's this is dumb. That's egregious. Every pro the world is right proffer is egregious. Conspicuously bad or offensive opinion. tom watson tosiwmee