Ann Coulter flays New York Times <sniff> God, I love that woman!

Is it the job of the New York Times to tell you EVERY piece of information going?

Stop the dissembling. The New York Times is baldly dishonest and the long time enemy of the white Christian majority in this country.

Eleven days after a Ferguson, Missouri police officer set off a media frenzy and days of rioting and looting when he shot and killed a black man named Mike Brown, a white man named Terence Groessel was shot by Dallas, TX police officers, setting off...well, nothing.

In response to the Missouri shooting, thousands of protestors gathered from all over the country for night after night of molotov cocktails, tear gas, armored personnel carriers, businesses burnt to the ground, and, of course, the media circus. The response to the Texas shooting was decidedly more muted. When asked for a comment, a guest in the hotel behind which Mr. Groessel died told a reporter that he never liked to hear of someone losing his life, but he hoped justice was served.

“No justice. No peace”, chanted the peaceful protesters in Missouri. Then the sun went down and the peaceful protesters transformed into a violent mob. We are against looting and stuff, the New York Times editorialized, but here is the real problem. In the St. Louis area, whites tend to live in white neighborhoods and blacks tend to live in black neighborhoods. So right there you've got segregation. And the people in the white neighborhoods are generally richer and pretty much run things. So there's inequality. “It is clear”, explained the Times, noting the higher rate of traffic stops of blacks than whites in Ferguson, “that local governments have not dispensed justice equally”.

You see? No justice. And it is the local whites who are, clearly, the problem.

Thankfully, the New York Times has discovered a solution. The federal government “may be able to answer the many questions surrounding the death of Michael Brown”.

There are certainly questions surrounding the death of Mr. Groessel eleven days later in Dallas. Mr. Groessel was sitting in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the hotel where he was a registered guest. The engine was idling, drawing the attention of two cops in a patrolling cruiser and leading them to wonder, inexplicably, whether the truck was stolen. With lights flashing, the cruiser pulled up behind the pick-up truck and the cops got out. As they approached the truck, say the cops, Mr. Groessel displayed a gun, whereupon the cops unloaded their weapons into the truck, striking Mr. Groessel twice in the abdomen. Still in his pick-up truck, Mr Groessel then fired his own gun into his own head, according to Dallas police, killing himself.

I can come up with a half dozen questions about that scenario just off the top of my head, yet even as I feel unmoved to go loot Dallas, the New York Times feels no need to encourage the feds to take over in the Groessel matter.

And the chief of police in Dallas is black.

(If you are reading this aloud to a friend, pause at this point and look up blankly at your friend as if waiting for a response. When your friend finally shrugs and says something like “so? what's that supposed to mean” you say “exactly” then look back down and continue reading).

Mr. Groessel wasn't even the first white man shot by Dallas police in the days following the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO. Only one day after the Missouri shooting, an unarmed 26-year-old white man named Andrew Scott Gaynier was shot and killed by Dallas police officer Antonio Hudson when Gaynier lunged at the officer. Despite the obvious parallels between the Gaynier and Brown shootings, those crickets you hear chirping is the New York Times demanding justice for Mr. Gaynier.

The New York Times' call for “justice” for Mr. Brown lays the blame for the “fury” in the streets of St Louis on the “the white power structure that dominates City Councils and police departments like the ones in Ferguson”. It cites as proof of white oppression the whiteness of the mayor, the whiteness of the chief of police, and the whiteness of the city council of Ferguson. But, “the disparity is most evident in the Ferguson Police Department,” writes the New York Times, “of which only three of 53 officers are black.”

But hold on just a second there, New York Times editorial board. Only one of your 18 members is black. That makes the oppressive white power structure at the Ferguson police department slightly more black than the editorial board of the New York Times, which has no power at all.

To make its case against local whites the Times cites Missouri Department of Motor Vehicle data:
  1. Blacks suffer traffic stops out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.
  2. Most traffic cops are white.
  3. Therefore, racism.
But a reasonably intelligent twelve-year-old could see the giant hole in that syllogism. Um, what if blacks break more traffic rules than whites? Assuming the intelligent adults writing op eds for the New York Times are at least as savvy as twelve-year-olds, you have to wonder why the editorial board would stake out its position in boob territory.

A look at the data from the Missouri DMV relied upon by the Times' editorial writers doesn't reassure. The very data the Times cites in support of its theory that injustices committed by whites are at the root of the fury in Missouri actually undermine the theory. That is, if you look at all the data.

While it is true that, proportionally, blacks are stopped for traffic violations more than whites in Ferguson, the same chart shows whites are stopped proportionally more than Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others. Did the editorial board miss that? If disproportionate ticketing by race is evidence of racial injustice, then the racist white cops of Ferguson are racist against whites in four out of five non-white racial groups.

The New York Times' argument that whites are responsible for blacks rioting and looting in Missouri collapses under its own absurdity, but the fact that the editorial writers took only the data that support their claim and discarded the data that flatten their house of cards suggests outright journalistic malfeasance.

So what gives with the Times?

Perhaps the answer can be found on the New York Times editorial page itself. Alongside the call for justice for Mike Brown appeared a piece “Why Jews Are Worried” in which we learn anti-Jewish attacks are on the rise in Europe, and, even though Muslims are the attackers, they are Europeans now and, anyway, white Christians are to blame for Muslim hatred of Jews since European missionaries “imported” anti-Semitism into the Middle East in the first place.

Yes, you read that right. According to an opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, white European Christians are to blame for Muslims not liking Jews.

If you notice a pattern, don't—that would make you a conspiracy nut—but if you were a newspaper hellbent on race war, you would faithfully republish everything having to do with race appearing on the opinion pages of the New York Times. If you are not a newspaper hellbent on race war, just keep repeating, "It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. "

So, the New York Times, like very other newspaper, TV station, media outlet in the country, is being dishonest, reporting facts with bias, etc etc. But you have to go attack the ones you don't like, right? The ones that say the things you don't want to hear.

Well, you have two options. One is not to read the NYT, the other is to set up your own PRIVATE newspaper or media outlet, and make up your own lies.
 
Is it the job of the New York Times to tell you EVERY piece of information going?

Stop the dissembling. The New York Times is baldly dishonest and the long time enemy of the white Christian majority in this country.

Eleven days after a Ferguson, Missouri police officer set off a media frenzy and days of rioting and looting when he shot and killed a black man named Mike Brown, a white man named Terence Groessel was shot by Dallas, TX police officers, setting off...well, nothing.

In response to the Missouri shooting, thousands of protestors gathered from all over the country for night after night of molotov cocktails, tear gas, armored personnel carriers, businesses burnt to the ground, and, of course, the media circus. The response to the Texas shooting was decidedly more muted. When asked for a comment, a guest in the hotel behind which Mr. Groessel died told a reporter that he never liked to hear of someone losing his life, but he hoped justice was served.

“No justice. No peace”, chanted the peaceful protesters in Missouri. Then the sun went down and the peaceful protesters transformed into a violent mob. We are against looting and stuff, the New York Times editorialized, but here is the real problem. In the St. Louis area, whites tend to live in white neighborhoods and blacks tend to live in black neighborhoods. So right there you've got segregation. And the people in the white neighborhoods are generally richer and pretty much run things. So there's inequality. “It is clear”, explained the Times, noting the higher rate of traffic stops of blacks than whites in Ferguson, “that local governments have not dispensed justice equally”.

You see? No justice. And it is the local whites who are, clearly, the problem.

Thankfully, the New York Times has discovered a solution. The federal government “may be able to answer the many questions surrounding the death of Michael Brown”.

There are certainly questions surrounding the death of Mr. Groessel eleven days later in Dallas. Mr. Groessel was sitting in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the hotel where he was a registered guest. The engine was idling, drawing the attention of two cops in a patrolling cruiser and leading them to wonder, inexplicably, whether the truck was stolen. With lights flashing, the cruiser pulled up behind the pick-up truck and the cops got out. As they approached the truck, say the cops, Mr. Groessel displayed a gun, whereupon the cops unloaded their weapons into the truck, striking Mr. Groessel twice in the abdomen. Still in his pick-up truck, Mr Groessel then fired his own gun into his own head, according to Dallas police, killing himself.

I can come up with a half dozen questions about that scenario just off the top of my head, yet even as I feel unmoved to go loot Dallas, the New York Times feels no need to encourage the feds to take over in the Groessel matter.

And the chief of police in Dallas is black.

(If you are reading this aloud to a friend, pause at this point and look up blankly at your friend as if waiting for a response. When your friend finally shrugs and says something like “so? what's that supposed to mean” you say “exactly” then look back down and continue reading).

Mr. Groessel wasn't even the first white man shot by Dallas police in the days following the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO. Only one day after the Missouri shooting, an unarmed 26-year-old white man named Andrew Scott Gaynier was shot and killed by Dallas police officer Antonio Hudson when Gaynier lunged at the officer. Despite the obvious parallels between the Gaynier and Brown shootings, those crickets you hear chirping is the New York Times demanding justice for Mr. Gaynier.

The New York Times' call for “justice” for Mr. Brown lays the blame for the “fury” in the streets of St Louis on the “the white power structure that dominates City Councils and police departments like the ones in Ferguson”. It cites as proof of white oppression the whiteness of the mayor, the whiteness of the chief of police, and the whiteness of the city council of Ferguson. But, “the disparity is most evident in the Ferguson Police Department,” writes the New York Times, “of which only three of 53 officers are black.”

But hold on just a second there, New York Times editorial board. Only one of your 18 members is black. That makes the oppressive white power structure at the Ferguson police department slightly more black than the editorial board of the New York Times, which has no power at all.

To make its case against local whites the Times cites Missouri Department of Motor Vehicle data:
  1. Blacks suffer traffic stops out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.
  2. Most traffic cops are white.
  3. Therefore, racism.
But a reasonably intelligent twelve-year-old could see the giant hole in that syllogism. Um, what if blacks break more traffic rules than whites? Assuming the intelligent adults writing op eds for the New York Times are at least as savvy as twelve-year-olds, you have to wonder why the editorial board would stake out its position in boob territory.

A look at the data from the Missouri DMV relied upon by the Times' editorial writers doesn't reassure. The very data the Times cites in support of its theory that injustices committed by whites are at the root of the fury in Missouri actually undermine the theory. That is, if you look at all the data.

While it is true that, proportionally, blacks are stopped for traffic violations more than whites in Ferguson, the same chart shows whites are stopped proportionally more than Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others. Did the editorial board miss that? If disproportionate ticketing by race is evidence of racial injustice, then the racist white cops of Ferguson are racist against whites in four out of five non-white racial groups.

The New York Times' argument that whites are responsible for blacks rioting and looting in Missouri collapses under its own absurdity, but the fact that the editorial writers took only the data that support their claim and discarded the data that flatten their house of cards suggests outright journalistic malfeasance.

So what gives with the Times?

Perhaps the answer can be found on the New York Times editorial page itself. Alongside the call for justice for Mike Brown appeared a piece “Why Jews Are Worried” in which we learn anti-Jewish attacks are on the rise in Europe, and, even though Muslims are the attackers, they are Europeans now and, anyway, white Christians are to blame for Muslim hatred of Jews since European missionaries “imported” anti-Semitism into the Middle East in the first place.

Yes, you read that right. According to an opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, white European Christians are to blame for Muslims not liking Jews.

If you notice a pattern, don't—that would make you a conspiracy nut—but if you were a newspaper hellbent on race war, you would faithfully republish everything having to do with race appearing on the opinion pages of the New York Times. If you are not a newspaper hellbent on race war, just keep repeating, "It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. "

So, the New York Times, like very other newspaper, TV station, media outlet in the country, is being dishonest, reporting facts with bias, etc etc. But you have to go attack the ones you don't like, right? The ones that say the things you don't want to hear.

Well, you have two options. One is not to read the NYT, the other is to set up your own PRIVATE newspaper or media outlet, and make up your own lies.
You forgot the third option: pointing out their hatred of white Christians, particularly men, and calling them out on their lies. Refute me, if you can.
 
Yeah!! Those killers are just made up by the post. Don't you know the post hires killers to murder people just so they can report it and blame whites?
Hmm you suddenly got quiet. I understand. It can be disconcerting to discover the institutions you've always relied on to keep you informed have been flat-out lying to you and are, in fact, your enemy.
 
Is it the job of the New York Times to tell you EVERY piece of information going?

Stop the dissembling. The New York Times is baldly dishonest and the long time enemy of the white Christian majority in this country.

Eleven days after a Ferguson, Missouri police officer set off a media frenzy and days of rioting and looting when he shot and killed a black man named Mike Brown, a white man named Terence Groessel was shot by Dallas, TX police officers, setting off...well, nothing.

In response to the Missouri shooting, thousands of protestors gathered from all over the country for night after night of molotov cocktails, tear gas, armored personnel carriers, businesses burnt to the ground, and, of course, the media circus. The response to the Texas shooting was decidedly more muted. When asked for a comment, a guest in the hotel behind which Mr. Groessel died told a reporter that he never liked to hear of someone losing his life, but he hoped justice was served.

“No justice. No peace”, chanted the peaceful protesters in Missouri. Then the sun went down and the peaceful protesters transformed into a violent mob. We are against looting and stuff, the New York Times editorialized, but here is the real problem. In the St. Louis area, whites tend to live in white neighborhoods and blacks tend to live in black neighborhoods. So right there you've got segregation. And the people in the white neighborhoods are generally richer and pretty much run things. So there's inequality. “It is clear”, explained the Times, noting the higher rate of traffic stops of blacks than whites in Ferguson, “that local governments have not dispensed justice equally”.

You see? No justice. And it is the local whites who are, clearly, the problem.

Thankfully, the New York Times has discovered a solution. The federal government “may be able to answer the many questions surrounding the death of Michael Brown”.

There are certainly questions surrounding the death of Mr. Groessel eleven days later in Dallas. Mr. Groessel was sitting in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the hotel where he was a registered guest. The engine was idling, drawing the attention of two cops in a patrolling cruiser and leading them to wonder, inexplicably, whether the truck was stolen. With lights flashing, the cruiser pulled up behind the pick-up truck and the cops got out. As they approached the truck, say the cops, Mr. Groessel displayed a gun, whereupon the cops unloaded their weapons into the truck, striking Mr. Groessel twice in the abdomen. Still in his pick-up truck, Mr Groessel then fired his own gun into his own head, according to Dallas police, killing himself.

I can come up with a half dozen questions about that scenario just off the top of my head, yet even as I feel unmoved to go loot Dallas, the New York Times feels no need to encourage the feds to take over in the Groessel matter.

And the chief of police in Dallas is black.

(If you are reading this aloud to a friend, pause at this point and look up blankly at your friend as if waiting for a response. When your friend finally shrugs and says something like “so? what's that supposed to mean” you say “exactly” then look back down and continue reading).

Mr. Groessel wasn't even the first white man shot by Dallas police in the days following the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO. Only one day after the Missouri shooting, an unarmed 26-year-old white man named Andrew Scott Gaynier was shot and killed by Dallas police officer Antonio Hudson when Gaynier lunged at the officer. Despite the obvious parallels between the Gaynier and Brown shootings, those crickets you hear chirping is the New York Times demanding justice for Mr. Gaynier.

The New York Times' call for “justice” for Mr. Brown lays the blame for the “fury” in the streets of St Louis on the “the white power structure that dominates City Councils and police departments like the ones in Ferguson”. It cites as proof of white oppression the whiteness of the mayor, the whiteness of the chief of police, and the whiteness of the city council of Ferguson. But, “the disparity is most evident in the Ferguson Police Department,” writes the New York Times, “of which only three of 53 officers are black.”

But hold on just a second there, New York Times editorial board. Only one of your 18 members is black. That makes the oppressive white power structure at the Ferguson police department slightly more black than the editorial board of the New York Times, which has no power at all.

To make its case against local whites the Times cites Missouri Department of Motor Vehicle data:
  1. Blacks suffer traffic stops out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.
  2. Most traffic cops are white.
  3. Therefore, racism.
But a reasonably intelligent twelve-year-old could see the giant hole in that syllogism. Um, what if blacks break more traffic rules than whites? Assuming the intelligent adults writing op eds for the New York Times are at least as savvy as twelve-year-olds, you have to wonder why the editorial board would stake out its position in boob territory.

A look at the data from the Missouri DMV relied upon by the Times' editorial writers doesn't reassure. The very data the Times cites in support of its theory that injustices committed by whites are at the root of the fury in Missouri actually undermine the theory. That is, if you look at all the data.

While it is true that, proportionally, blacks are stopped for traffic violations more than whites in Ferguson, the same chart shows whites are stopped proportionally more than Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others. Did the editorial board miss that? If disproportionate ticketing by race is evidence of racial injustice, then the racist white cops of Ferguson are racist against whites in four out of five non-white racial groups.

The New York Times' argument that whites are responsible for blacks rioting and looting in Missouri collapses under its own absurdity, but the fact that the editorial writers took only the data that support their claim and discarded the data that flatten their house of cards suggests outright journalistic malfeasance.

So what gives with the Times?

Perhaps the answer can be found on the New York Times editorial page itself. Alongside the call for justice for Mike Brown appeared a piece “Why Jews Are Worried” in which we learn anti-Jewish attacks are on the rise in Europe, and, even though Muslims are the attackers, they are Europeans now and, anyway, white Christians are to blame for Muslim hatred of Jews since European missionaries “imported” anti-Semitism into the Middle East in the first place.

Yes, you read that right. According to an opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, white European Christians are to blame for Muslims not liking Jews.

If you notice a pattern, don't—that would make you a conspiracy nut—but if you were a newspaper hellbent on race war, you would faithfully republish everything having to do with race appearing on the opinion pages of the New York Times. If you are not a newspaper hellbent on race war, just keep repeating, "It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. "

So, the New York Times, like very other newspaper, TV station, media outlet in the country, is being dishonest, reporting facts with bias, etc etc. But you have to go attack the ones you don't like, right? The ones that say the things you don't want to hear.

Well, you have two options. One is not to read the NYT, the other is to set up your own PRIVATE newspaper or media outlet, and make up your own lies.
You forgot the third option: pointing out their hatred of white Christians, particularly men, and calling them out on their lies. Refute me, if you can.

I doubt very much that they have a hatred of white Christians, but you can play the victim as much as you like....
 
Is it the job of the New York Times to tell you EVERY piece of information going?

Stop the dissembling. The New York Times is baldly dishonest and the long time enemy of the white Christian majority in this country.

Eleven days after a Ferguson, Missouri police officer set off a media frenzy and days of rioting and looting when he shot and killed a black man named Mike Brown, a white man named Terence Groessel was shot by Dallas, TX police officers, setting off...well, nothing.

In response to the Missouri shooting, thousands of protestors gathered from all over the country for night after night of molotov cocktails, tear gas, armored personnel carriers, businesses burnt to the ground, and, of course, the media circus. The response to the Texas shooting was decidedly more muted. When asked for a comment, a guest in the hotel behind which Mr. Groessel died told a reporter that he never liked to hear of someone losing his life, but he hoped justice was served.

“No justice. No peace”, chanted the peaceful protesters in Missouri. Then the sun went down and the peaceful protesters transformed into a violent mob. We are against looting and stuff, the New York Times editorialized, but here is the real problem. In the St. Louis area, whites tend to live in white neighborhoods and blacks tend to live in black neighborhoods. So right there you've got segregation. And the people in the white neighborhoods are generally richer and pretty much run things. So there's inequality. “It is clear”, explained the Times, noting the higher rate of traffic stops of blacks than whites in Ferguson, “that local governments have not dispensed justice equally”.

You see? No justice. And it is the local whites who are, clearly, the problem.

Thankfully, the New York Times has discovered a solution. The federal government “may be able to answer the many questions surrounding the death of Michael Brown”.

There are certainly questions surrounding the death of Mr. Groessel eleven days later in Dallas. Mr. Groessel was sitting in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the hotel where he was a registered guest. The engine was idling, drawing the attention of two cops in a patrolling cruiser and leading them to wonder, inexplicably, whether the truck was stolen. With lights flashing, the cruiser pulled up behind the pick-up truck and the cops got out. As they approached the truck, say the cops, Mr. Groessel displayed a gun, whereupon the cops unloaded their weapons into the truck, striking Mr. Groessel twice in the abdomen. Still in his pick-up truck, Mr Groessel then fired his own gun into his own head, according to Dallas police, killing himself.

I can come up with a half dozen questions about that scenario just off the top of my head, yet even as I feel unmoved to go loot Dallas, the New York Times feels no need to encourage the feds to take over in the Groessel matter.

And the chief of police in Dallas is black.

(If you are reading this aloud to a friend, pause at this point and look up blankly at your friend as if waiting for a response. When your friend finally shrugs and says something like “so? what's that supposed to mean” you say “exactly” then look back down and continue reading).

Mr. Groessel wasn't even the first white man shot by Dallas police in the days following the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO. Only one day after the Missouri shooting, an unarmed 26-year-old white man named Andrew Scott Gaynier was shot and killed by Dallas police officer Antonio Hudson when Gaynier lunged at the officer. Despite the obvious parallels between the Gaynier and Brown shootings, those crickets you hear chirping is the New York Times demanding justice for Mr. Gaynier.

The New York Times' call for “justice” for Mr. Brown lays the blame for the “fury” in the streets of St Louis on the “the white power structure that dominates City Councils and police departments like the ones in Ferguson”. It cites as proof of white oppression the whiteness of the mayor, the whiteness of the chief of police, and the whiteness of the city council of Ferguson. But, “the disparity is most evident in the Ferguson Police Department,” writes the New York Times, “of which only three of 53 officers are black.”

But hold on just a second there, New York Times editorial board. Only one of your 18 members is black. That makes the oppressive white power structure at the Ferguson police department slightly more black than the editorial board of the New York Times, which has no power at all.

To make its case against local whites the Times cites Missouri Department of Motor Vehicle data:
  1. Blacks suffer traffic stops out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.
  2. Most traffic cops are white.
  3. Therefore, racism.
But a reasonably intelligent twelve-year-old could see the giant hole in that syllogism. Um, what if blacks break more traffic rules than whites? Assuming the intelligent adults writing op eds for the New York Times are at least as savvy as twelve-year-olds, you have to wonder why the editorial board would stake out its position in boob territory.

A look at the data from the Missouri DMV relied upon by the Times' editorial writers doesn't reassure. The very data the Times cites in support of its theory that injustices committed by whites are at the root of the fury in Missouri actually undermine the theory. That is, if you look at all the data.

While it is true that, proportionally, blacks are stopped for traffic violations more than whites in Ferguson, the same chart shows whites are stopped proportionally more than Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others. Did the editorial board miss that? If disproportionate ticketing by race is evidence of racial injustice, then the racist white cops of Ferguson are racist against whites in four out of five non-white racial groups.

The New York Times' argument that whites are responsible for blacks rioting and looting in Missouri collapses under its own absurdity, but the fact that the editorial writers took only the data that support their claim and discarded the data that flatten their house of cards suggests outright journalistic malfeasance.

So what gives with the Times?

Perhaps the answer can be found on the New York Times editorial page itself. Alongside the call for justice for Mike Brown appeared a piece “Why Jews Are Worried” in which we learn anti-Jewish attacks are on the rise in Europe, and, even though Muslims are the attackers, they are Europeans now and, anyway, white Christians are to blame for Muslim hatred of Jews since European missionaries “imported” anti-Semitism into the Middle East in the first place.

Yes, you read that right. According to an opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, white European Christians are to blame for Muslims not liking Jews.

If you notice a pattern, don't—that would make you a conspiracy nut—but if you were a newspaper hellbent on race war, you would faithfully republish everything having to do with race appearing on the opinion pages of the New York Times. If you are not a newspaper hellbent on race war, just keep repeating, "It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. "

So, the New York Times, like very other newspaper, TV station, media outlet in the country, is being dishonest, reporting facts with bias, etc etc. But you have to go attack the ones you don't like, right? The ones that say the things you don't want to hear.

Well, you have two options. One is not to read the NYT, the other is to set up your own PRIVATE newspaper or media outlet, and make up your own lies.
You forgot the third option: pointing out their hatred of white Christians, particularly men, and calling them out on their lies. Refute me, if you can.

I doubt very much that they have a hatred of white Christians, but you can play the victim as much as you like....
But I cite actual evidence supporting my argument, you only snark in return. That means, I win. That makes YOU the victim, cowboy.
 
Is it the job of the New York Times to tell you EVERY piece of information going?

Stop the dissembling. The New York Times is baldly dishonest and the long time enemy of the white Christian majority in this country.

Eleven days after a Ferguson, Missouri police officer set off a media frenzy and days of rioting and looting when he shot and killed a black man named Mike Brown, a white man named Terence Groessel was shot by Dallas, TX police officers, setting off...well, nothing.

In response to the Missouri shooting, thousands of protestors gathered from all over the country for night after night of molotov cocktails, tear gas, armored personnel carriers, businesses burnt to the ground, and, of course, the media circus. The response to the Texas shooting was decidedly more muted. When asked for a comment, a guest in the hotel behind which Mr. Groessel died told a reporter that he never liked to hear of someone losing his life, but he hoped justice was served.

“No justice. No peace”, chanted the peaceful protesters in Missouri. Then the sun went down and the peaceful protesters transformed into a violent mob. We are against looting and stuff, the New York Times editorialized, but here is the real problem. In the St. Louis area, whites tend to live in white neighborhoods and blacks tend to live in black neighborhoods. So right there you've got segregation. And the people in the white neighborhoods are generally richer and pretty much run things. So there's inequality. “It is clear”, explained the Times, noting the higher rate of traffic stops of blacks than whites in Ferguson, “that local governments have not dispensed justice equally”.

You see? No justice. And it is the local whites who are, clearly, the problem.

Thankfully, the New York Times has discovered a solution. The federal government “may be able to answer the many questions surrounding the death of Michael Brown”.

There are certainly questions surrounding the death of Mr. Groessel eleven days later in Dallas. Mr. Groessel was sitting in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the hotel where he was a registered guest. The engine was idling, drawing the attention of two cops in a patrolling cruiser and leading them to wonder, inexplicably, whether the truck was stolen. With lights flashing, the cruiser pulled up behind the pick-up truck and the cops got out. As they approached the truck, say the cops, Mr. Groessel displayed a gun, whereupon the cops unloaded their weapons into the truck, striking Mr. Groessel twice in the abdomen. Still in his pick-up truck, Mr Groessel then fired his own gun into his own head, according to Dallas police, killing himself.

I can come up with a half dozen questions about that scenario just off the top of my head, yet even as I feel unmoved to go loot Dallas, the New York Times feels no need to encourage the feds to take over in the Groessel matter.

And the chief of police in Dallas is black.

(If you are reading this aloud to a friend, pause at this point and look up blankly at your friend as if waiting for a response. When your friend finally shrugs and says something like “so? what's that supposed to mean” you say “exactly” then look back down and continue reading).

Mr. Groessel wasn't even the first white man shot by Dallas police in the days following the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO. Only one day after the Missouri shooting, an unarmed 26-year-old white man named Andrew Scott Gaynier was shot and killed by Dallas police officer Antonio Hudson when Gaynier lunged at the officer. Despite the obvious parallels between the Gaynier and Brown shootings, those crickets you hear chirping is the New York Times demanding justice for Mr. Gaynier.

The New York Times' call for “justice” for Mr. Brown lays the blame for the “fury” in the streets of St Louis on the “the white power structure that dominates City Councils and police departments like the ones in Ferguson”. It cites as proof of white oppression the whiteness of the mayor, the whiteness of the chief of police, and the whiteness of the city council of Ferguson. But, “the disparity is most evident in the Ferguson Police Department,” writes the New York Times, “of which only three of 53 officers are black.”

But hold on just a second there, New York Times editorial board. Only one of your 18 members is black. That makes the oppressive white power structure at the Ferguson police department slightly more black than the editorial board of the New York Times, which has no power at all.

To make its case against local whites the Times cites Missouri Department of Motor Vehicle data:
  1. Blacks suffer traffic stops out of proportion to their numbers in the general population.
  2. Most traffic cops are white.
  3. Therefore, racism.
But a reasonably intelligent twelve-year-old could see the giant hole in that syllogism. Um, what if blacks break more traffic rules than whites? Assuming the intelligent adults writing op eds for the New York Times are at least as savvy as twelve-year-olds, you have to wonder why the editorial board would stake out its position in boob territory.

A look at the data from the Missouri DMV relied upon by the Times' editorial writers doesn't reassure. The very data the Times cites in support of its theory that injustices committed by whites are at the root of the fury in Missouri actually undermine the theory. That is, if you look at all the data.

While it is true that, proportionally, blacks are stopped for traffic violations more than whites in Ferguson, the same chart shows whites are stopped proportionally more than Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others. Did the editorial board miss that? If disproportionate ticketing by race is evidence of racial injustice, then the racist white cops of Ferguson are racist against whites in four out of five non-white racial groups.

The New York Times' argument that whites are responsible for blacks rioting and looting in Missouri collapses under its own absurdity, but the fact that the editorial writers took only the data that support their claim and discarded the data that flatten their house of cards suggests outright journalistic malfeasance.

So what gives with the Times?

Perhaps the answer can be found on the New York Times editorial page itself. Alongside the call for justice for Mike Brown appeared a piece “Why Jews Are Worried” in which we learn anti-Jewish attacks are on the rise in Europe, and, even though Muslims are the attackers, they are Europeans now and, anyway, white Christians are to blame for Muslim hatred of Jews since European missionaries “imported” anti-Semitism into the Middle East in the first place.

Yes, you read that right. According to an opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, white European Christians are to blame for Muslims not liking Jews.

If you notice a pattern, don't—that would make you a conspiracy nut—but if you were a newspaper hellbent on race war, you would faithfully republish everything having to do with race appearing on the opinion pages of the New York Times. If you are not a newspaper hellbent on race war, just keep repeating, "It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. It is racist to notice the war on whites. "

So, the New York Times, like very other newspaper, TV station, media outlet in the country, is being dishonest, reporting facts with bias, etc etc. But you have to go attack the ones you don't like, right? The ones that say the things you don't want to hear.

Well, you have two options. One is not to read the NYT, the other is to set up your own PRIVATE newspaper or media outlet, and make up your own lies.
You forgot the third option: pointing out their hatred of white Christians, particularly men, and calling them out on their lies. Refute me, if you can.

I doubt very much that they have a hatred of white Christians, but you can play the victim as much as you like....
But I cite actual evidence supporting my argument, you only snark in return. That means, I win. That makes YOU the victim, cowboy.

What? Are you serious? You think if you present some evidence to support your argument that you instantly win? How old are you?

You make a claim, I don't agree with you.

The media is all about what sells. What sells is that the smaller person is being trodden on by the larger person. The larger person happens to often be the white Christian males because they're the ones causing all the problems.

Of all the presidents the US have had, all of them have been male and Christian and only one of them has not been white. Congress is more white than the country, more male than the country.

The new Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian

"The 114th Congress, which gets to "work" on Tuesday, is one of the most diverse in American history,"

So, the last Congress.... one of the most diverse in US history.

"comprised of nearly 20 percent women", yeah, as if the US is made up of 20% women and 80% males. In fact it's 0.97 males to 1 female.

imrs.php


Also it's mostly Catholic. what, that looks like about 35 people in Congress who aren't Christian, out of about 535 members. 73% of the US is Christian, about 90 something percent in Congress are Christian.

"and just over 17 percent of which is non-white." As if 17% of the US is non-white, in fact it's 28% non-white in the real world, but Congress has never been representative of the population, with WHITE CHRISTIAN MALES being the majority since day one. They're the ones who control the country, and everyone else can suck it up.

But hey, I understand your need to play the victim when your people control EVERYTHING, but you're not the victim, and you don't get to decide that you win based on almost nothing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top