Making Baby Jesus Cry

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap

That's a damn good one.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I dig George Will, even when I don't agree with him. He's the natural successor to Buckly. Too bad no one of that quality, as yet, has risen as the natural sucessor to Will, which is a bad sign for conservative thougt in America.

Coulter.

What's really a shame is the battle for the title of most rarified liberal faux-intellectualist is being fought between Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich. The gaping holes of stupidity that each bring to the table make all of us stupider by IQ-osmosis. But what can we expect from the paper of Jayson Blair.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Coulter.

What's really a shame is the battle for the title of most rarified liberal faux-intellectualist is being fought between Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich. The gaping holes of stupidity that each bring to the table make all of us stupider by IQ-osmosis. But what can we expect from the paper of Jayson Blair.

You don't think the Times can be trusted to be accurate?

http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2005/...eezza_ric.html

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I dig George Will, even when I don't agree with him. He's the natural successor to Buckly. Too bad no one of that quality, as yet, has risen as the natural sucessor to Will, which is a bad sign for conservative thougt in America.

Take heart. As free-marketers have predicted, the marketplace will solve this problem, now that boatloads of money in recent years have been devoted to the creation of conservative flavors of mass communications.

The spiritual descendant of Will is probably somewhere in the estates of Connecticut, where a bow-tie-clad 8 year old sits, deep inside the pages of Proust, assiduously compiling the stray literary and cultural references that will become the benchmark of his work.

Until then, we all carry hope that the multimillion-dollar investment of News Corp. will bring returns, and that Sean Hannity will construct complete sentences.

Gattigap

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You don't think the Times can be trusted to be accurate?

http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2005/...eezza_ric.html

The Times is the paper of record for the party who has a Klansman as its conscience.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The Times is the paper of record for the party who has a Klansman as its conscience.

Remember when Senator Lott made some seemingly racist comments and we moved him out of leadership? You keep commenting on this Senator Byrd, surely a man who was in a KKK would have his position in the senate curtailed dramatically by the Dems.

Can you list the sanctions/punishments placed upon him by the Dem leadership for the KKK stuff.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
You don't think the Times can be trusted to be accurate?

No.

Paul Krugman today has published what may be the most peculiar correction ever run in any newspaper at the bottom of his column. "I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald," he writes of a column published last wek. "Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three."

How is this a correction? Krugman is just repeating what he said last week, to wit: "Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore."

Is Krugman joking? The phrasing of his "correction" was either disingenuous -- a refusal to acknowledge an error even while was supposedly acknowledging it -- or weirdly stupid, or badly edited.

The point, though, is that for the second straight week, he has mischaracterized the media recounts. Tell you what. I'll even do Krugman a favor, and use the results not from the first media recount led by the Miami Herald --which only counted undervotes -- but the second. The second recount, published on May 17, 2001, counted both undervotes and overvotes. According to the Miami Herald story that included the 110,000 "overvotes" on May 17, 2001: "Bush would have prevailed under the two most restrictive [standards]. His biggest margin would have been 407 votes under the standard most commonly accepted by states that use punch-card ballots. It requires that two corners of a ballot's chad must be detached in order for the vote to count. Gore would have won under the two most permissive standards. His biggest margin would have been 332 votes if dimpled chads, which bulge out but are still attached at all four corners, were considered valid votes."

So according to a media recount dealing with a practical impossibility -- which is that "overvotes" would EVER have been counted, since the Florida Supreme Court ruled that out entirely in its decision on the matter -- Bush won two and Gore won two. Gore did not win two of three.

As of now, Krugman has lost two of two. What will he say on Tuesday?

Podhoretz on today's Corner.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No.

Resolved: as long as Liberals keep redoing 2000, Penske is on solid ground to bring up the clintons.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Resolved: as long as Liberals keep redoing 2000, Penske is on solid ground to bring up the clintons.

Futher Resolved: Penske's clintonian rants are welcome on those forums where Liberals actually keep redoing 2000.

[Spanky]

Is there anyone who really believe that the NYT is an unbiased news source?

The thing that gets me about Ann Coulter is she keeps complaining about the NYT. Why doens't she just stop reading it. The opposite of love is not hate it is Apathy. If conservatives would act like me, and just pretend it doesn't exist, then its influence would decline rapidly. But as long as conservatives bitch about it the longer people will think it is an important newspaper.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Futher Resolved: Penske's clintonian rants are welcome on those forums where Liberals actually keep redoing 2000.

You mean here ?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You mean here ?

Sure. They'll appreciate the nuances of the photoshops even more than we do. Godspeed, I say!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sure. They'll appreciate the nuances of the photoshops even more than we do. Godspeed, I say!

Like most effette faux-intellectualists, the liberals at Huffington (in the grand tradition of the Soviets, the RedChinese and the Clintons) are scared of the truth and seek to suppress it via censorship, i.e. the deletion of all my posts. DU too.

Ty has lots of mentors.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is there anyone who really believe that the NYT is an unbiased news source?

The thing that gets me about Ann Coulter is she keeps complaining about the NYT. Why doens't she just stop reading it. The opposite of love is not hate it is Apathy. If conservatives would act like me, and just pretend it doesn't exist, then its influence would decline rapidly. But as long as conservatives bitch about it the longer people will think it is an important newspaper.

Should I cancel my subscription even if they don't refund the prepayment?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Like most effette faux-intellectualists, the liberals at Huffington (in the grand tradition of the Soviets, the RedChinese and the Clintons) are scared of the truth and seek to suppress it via censorship, i.e. the deletion of all my posts. DU too.

Ty has lots of mentors.

Don't be discouraged, Penske. Take heed from our President, who astutely points out the importance of taking the fight to them on their borders, instead of soiling Lawtalkers with collateral damage. Embrace the flypaper theory!