Re: NY TIMES stops ****lling for McCain

"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:JlFhk.16046$mh5.2068@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:XJednXGjloKEkxrVnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:w8whk.18247$Ri.18013@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:t5WdnTKpXrJXnxvVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > The Boston Herald ran it, and it was typical of McCain's vacuous,
> >> > empty-headed sup****t of Bush's war.  He claimed we had to press on
to
> >> > "victory" but never defined what "victory" would look like.
> >>
> >> Moron, it's uprecedented and unbelievably arrogant of the Times to
think
> >> they have the right to condensendingly tell McCain what he should
write
> >> in
> >> his response.
> >>
> >
> > No, dummy, it's what newspaper editors do.
>
> Not in a presidential campaign which is why they are in attack-mode,
damage
> control once again attempting to defend their all too obvious liberal
> bias.......

The bias that sup****ted Bush's war and led them to endorse McCain in the
primary?

Do you even understand what you're copying off your talking points?




>
> > I write for newspapers.  If
> > editors feel an article is unclear, as McSame's vague, amateurish
screed
> > was, then they are *obligated* to tell the writer to redo it or else
> > reject
> > it.
> >
> > If McSame wants his unedited gibberish read, he can start a blog, if
> > someone
> > can show the computer-illiterate codger how to get on to "the
Internets."
> >
> >
>
>