Sunday, July 30, 2006

Hey, everyone! Let's watch the New York Times make a parody of itself! 
Here they are endorsing (who else?) Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman:

Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.

Yeah. Bush ALWAYS does that. Continually. And his adminstration as depicted ANY questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Always. Ummmm... don't make me actually support my thesis with specific examples.

Oh, and Lieberman. Denouncing Democrats who were more focused on how Bush took us into the war than on supporting the war's progress. How dare he? Everyone knows every drooling, barking moonbat is above all criticism.

The moral authority of a leftist whack-job is absolute. Don't you people know that?

Seriously, what kind of uncoupled, drug-addled thought process can come up with a formulation like this:

In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.

Huh? Don't editors have editors? Lieberman, quite rightly, brings perspective to the Abu Ghraib flap, and the Times objects? Lieberman notes that Al Qaeda never apologized for 9/11 and that equals holding the American military to the same standards as terrorists?

These people are simply stupid. The intellectual inbreeding in Manhattan has created a community of retards.

I'm sure their argument makes sense when they repeat it to other chromosomally-challenged individuals around the Times editorial offices. But once it leaves the building, their logic falls apart like a soup sandwich in a chicken wire bowl.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

Yeah, he showed spine in conforming to Kosbollah orthodoxy. Which equates a certain spinelessness in itself. Meanwhile, the Times admits Lamont can't hold a candle to Senator Lieberman on, well, you know, the issues.

Not that they're important for a Senator.

The Times is an embarrassment to itself.

"But once it leaves the building, their logic falls apart like a soup sandwich in a chicken wire bowl."

I'm using that line, young man. Good line.

If you want to sound smart and thoughtful, you shouldn't call people "retards".

Just a hint.
Love the soup thing! Not! The Tymes important need to be in Fallujah when the lights go out preaching the BS. Pick up the survivors come dawn.
OHNOS! He used the dreaded word 'retard' to appropriately describe someone. Alert the thought police!!

On a more serious note, I don't think the NY Times feels at all embarrassed by their slanted print. They have to know it's slanted. They have an agenda and print what they need to in order to push that agenda. Journalistic integrity/honesty has long since left the NY Times editorial office.
No, before you accuse me of sounding unthoughtful (perish the thought!) you should make sure you understand all the levels of meaning.

The word "retard," as used here, was not literal, and was not even used in the hyperbolic sense it usually is when applied to left wing retards--I mean, people.

The word "retard" is used metaphorically.

Here is the construction:

just as

genetic inbreeding ---> retards

so does

intellectual inbreeding ---> retards

Just a hint.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!