I know this will come as a big surprise to many, but the NY Times has come out and endorsed John Kerry.
No screaming eagle shit.
by John Cole| 6 Comments
This post is in: General Stupidity
I know this will come as a big surprise to many, but the NY Times has come out and endorsed John Kerry.
No screaming eagle shit.
Comments are closed.
CadillaqJaq
Bully for NYT. Who’da thunk?
The Detroit News came out in support of GWB…
Sandi
Yeah, about Kerry the NYT said: “He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.”
What? Umm. Men with strong moral cores don’t exploit the children of candidates to make political hay. Men with strong moral core are not afraid to talk about their 20 year record. Men with strong moral core don’t flip flop.
NYT said about Bush: “Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency,…”
How about that the court realized Gore had yet to win a single count.
NYT said: “Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement.”
Exactly. Combatants never get to challenge confinement. They never have been able to. The NYT is ignorant of the legal conventions covering prisoners of war.
The NYT omits facts, are out of touch and ill informed? (Or just outright lying.)
Justin O.
Bush already exploited the child of Cheney candidate by imposing a ban on gay marriage and thinking that being gay is a choice.
Marinate in Texas for a little while longer Bushie, maybe everyone will go back to hating on the black folks.
wild bird
Yeah and i,ll bet that the NYT came out for th relection of jimmy carter hey do you expect anything else from the New York Pravda? its americas most far left paper
Justin Ogren
You wanna know about endorsements? Turn on Fox News for 10 seconds, turn it off. Think. You didn’t even need to ponder did you?
Guitar Picks Guy
I think it was in the 1st debate where Kerry said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong PLACE”? He (later in the same debate) then said: there was no evidence of any terrorist groups or support in Iraq that made it the wrong PLACE.
Very funny that his answer to the next set of questions led to a statement (about the Iraq borders being unsecured) reflecting something to the effect of: the terrorists are now pouring across the Iraqi borders, and something needs to be done to better secure them.
Too bad Bush didn’t jump on that during the debate. A great question arises:
Which is it?
– There were NO terrorists in Iraq and now they are RUNNING there to fight for there cause?
– They really WERE there ALL ALONG and sent for reinforcements?
– Bush is a war strategy genius and has them running to a country (where they weren’t) right at the US troops?
-Hmmm, wonder which it really is? Very confusing. Guess we may never know!