Monday, July 21, 2008

Election update, then I rant

God forbid anyone read one of this guy's op-eds.

John McCain's presidential campaign confirms for us some news that the Drudge Report broke earlier -- The New York Times has declined to publish an op-ed piece by the Republican presidential contender.
More evidence that, despite whatever Chomsky and Herman say to the contrary, The New York Times is a liberal paper that doesn't even want anyone to hear the other side's argument. Just listen to David Brooks, the most conservative of the paper's commentators: “Being the house conservative at the New York Times is like being the chief rabbi in Mecca.” This guy's no radical, either - he supports gay marriage.
The New York Times is still a great place to get your news, but the far-left Democratic shills running the opinion section need to pull their heads out of their asses. If I ran this site the way the Times editors run their paper, Glen and Chris would be slapped on the wrist every time they tried to...oh my something I didn't completely agree with! Here's that Op-Ed that scares the Times so much, not that I've even read it, I just want to prove a point and give the finger to a certain opinion section. Besides, it's McCain, so it can't be too far-right anyway.


  1. I read one of McCain's op-eds and it was very jingoistic. I don't blame the Times for having taste and deciding not to print that shit. Anyway, they have a history of suppressing information, cutting out important facts, and downright lying. During the genocide in East Timor they refused to print articles on it, even when there was a tireless effort to get victims/refugees to the Times, they were all turned down.

  2. Btw, "far left democratic" is like an oxymoron. The Far left are not democrats, as far as I know. They are generally radical, sometimes liberal, but most do not believe in the "Democrat v. Republican" two party (cough one party cough) system.

  3. Actually, I correct myself. RARELY DO LIBERALS REPRESENT THE FAR LEFT.

  4. I see no reason why the Times can't run its opinion section the same way I run this blog's section. I can't speak for Chris or Glen, but let's suppose one of them wants to post a jingoistic rant glorifying a political party. I'd let them post it, even though I think it's foolish to pledge allegiance to a group whose ideology won't always be the same as yours. I encourage diversity of opinions at this blog, unlike the Times, which has an agenda to push with every opinion piece it publishes. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to write the stupidest, most jingoistic, piece of crap op-ed piece you've ever written after a hard night of drinking, and the freedom to get your idiotic drunken rambling seen by an audience.

  5. I don't blame the Times for having taste and deciding not to print that shit.


    I don't blame NBC for cutting RATM short during SNL.

  6. Exactly the point I'm trying to make, Glen.

  7. The article I read said they simply wanted a specific format that they made Obama adhere to but McCain's op-ed did not follow.

    Plus apparently a good chunk was about nothing more than mocking Obama's strategy and saying he was wrong (which McCain also later stated), so I guess I can see why they did it.


Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.

3/11 Update - No Moderation

*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.