Attacking the NYT to defend a guy with a 4th grade vocabulary is being anti intellectual (generation, illegal)

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Kracer

The NYT of days gone by is not the same NYTs/dem propaganda machine it is today.

Trying to ride the old reputation of the NYTs is like the socialists pretending to be democrats.

Times change and reputations do get lost.

Nailed it.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Seriously, how daft of you? You're defending an egotistical 70 year old man from one of the biggest if not the biggest literary outlets in the world.

Remember when we wanted our kids to read the NYT? Now it seems people want to dish it because it has opeds that criticize little Donny Boy.

"Seriously, how daft of you?"

I don' t know.

How daft are you for the things you post?

[EdwardA]

Oh boo hoo Trump isn't sophisticated enough for my tastes. Get over it.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

The Sulzbergers who owned the New York Times had an agenda: To make America "less white" so that Jews would be "safe."

It seems that they've succeeded with the "less white" part, but that doesn't necessarily make Jews safe.

I'd say the opposite is true.

As for the Times being literary and intellectual, I would expect those qualities to rub off on the liberals here who praise the Times.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

In fact, they can't even get basic facts and logic right.

Elegant prose, wit, erudition, worldliness, sophistication -- Nun-unh.

Not seeing that, either.

This is anti-Semetic tripe. The Sulzburgers were mainly Sephardi Jews whose roots go back to the NY Dutch colonial days. They were very patriotic family & many were openly anti-Zionists. They caught a lot of grief for the NYT not being sufficiently anti-Hitler during the 30s. Many aren't even Jews after several generations of marrying non-Jews.

[jeffrow1]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

This post make no sense at all..... Jews are white.

Not to a skin head, neo nazi alt right whatever.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

... You're defending an egotistical 70 year old man from one of the biggest if not the biggest literary outlets in the world.....

Are you saying that Trump wrote for the NY Times? or owned it?

Which is it Shakespeare? (or did you forget to proofread your OP?).

Jeesh....kids today.

[knowledgeiskey]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Oh boo hoo Trump isn't sophisticated enough for my tastes. Get over it.

Oh, this guy. Lol

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

It does publish reviews of literature, but you wouldn't know. You rather read Info Wars than keeping up with current events, book reviews, and highbrow opeds.

Yeah, Yeah....all the "highbrow opeds" & all the news that's fit to print...... (as long as it fits the narative from the SJW handbook).

It's a Socialist Rag on life support.

[knowledgeiskey]

Originally Posted by hound 109

Yeah, Yeah....all the "highbrow opeds" &all the news that's fit to print...... (as long as it fits the narative from the SJW handbook).

It's a Socialist Rag on life support.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

[ATX Wahine]

OP, your image needs a bit of work. That is, if you are trying to convince others that you are an erudite person of great intelligence. You don't come across as such. People of great intellect don't prioritize Internet forum spamming. From what I have seen, that is your greatest attribute. So as you pound away at your keyboard in defense of a newspaper (yea - let that sink in for a moment) just remember that more people will laugh at you than anything else.

Right. Good day, then.