A couple of recent items in the times highlight the amazing disconnect between the editorial stance of the times, and the facts as reported in their own newspaper. it's almost as if they have a preconceived agenda... First, here's the Times editors on the economy: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/o...6cedcf973&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Now, from the news pages on the same day http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/b...42af5cfd2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Then last week, Paul Krugman made the astonishing claim that Krugman's own newspaper was a member of the newspaper consortia that did the recounts, and here's what they reported at the time: Don't they have editors at the times to catch this stuff?
What conservatives often fail to grasp is that life is full of contridictions and truth is subject to the perspective of the individual. No set of talking points, no matter how dogmaticly presented represent any ultimate truth. We always have to evaluate and reconsider our own truth through the grey area of other people's perceptions and opinions. Life would be easier if it were simple blacks and whites, but it's not.
at least they put them out as editorials.. what's the definition of editorials? not like other tv stations which present their opinions as "news"
Paul Krugman made the astonishing claim Recount every ballot in Florida and Gore wins. Recount the 43,000 in question and Bush wins. Where is the countradiction?
you left out the crucial qualifier "might" win, and if the most ermissive counting standards were used. IOW, "let us make **** up and our candidate might eek this one out." is that what you're hanging your hat on?
An amazing insight into a conservative Bush supporter. 1) Imagine. The paper has opinion pieces that might, according to Basso's opinion , be in contradicition to the facts in the reporting section. 2) He wants the editors to fix the facts or fix the opinon piece to be totally consistent. Wierd. 3) I bet he doesn't have any problems with the WSJ that always has pretty consistent conservative opinion pieces, but has a reporting section where the facts might not agree with the opinion page. 4) I guess this is why he Basso supports the Administration that wanted to "fix the facts" to agree with their opinion that we should invade Iraq.
I refute your original assertion. Quite well, I might. To no surprise, you missed that. You did appear to project your insecurity wrt whether GWB actually won in 2000, which is cool since everybody has their hangups.
