Gun Advocate Slams The New York Times

The poll question:

"Do you believe that The New York Times would intentionally ignore data that might alter the conclusion of its research?"

Results so far :

Yes - 100%
No - 0%
 
Hell, we know that they would disregard, over look, forget about, discredit or ignore any facts that would be counter to their preconceived notions and opinions. They are another group of hacks that have never met an anti-firearmss ownership law that they have disliked.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
How did you like the wimpy response from the editorial staff?

"Well, we never said we found all of 'em."

Journalism school...a pit.

Rick
 
87 - 13 as of my vote.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Say! Isn't this old news?
I seem to remember that this article was published 1 or 2 months ago and that after some back and forth with Lott and others the NY Times admitted that it's data was biased by the reporter that compiled the story.
Then again this could be a new article. The Times is not above presenting the same wrong data twice just so they can sell an extra paper. After all, the majority of their readers are from NY and having lived under the Sullivan Act all their lives and the bulls**t that it is the best gun control/protection in this country, they'll beleive anything.
 
Back up to 92 to 8 ....lies, lies ...damned lies

------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top