They Have No Shame
N.Y. Times Confirms Roberts Adoption Inquiry
The New York Times is acknowledging that it made "initial inquiries" into whether there was anything "irregular" in the adoptions of Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts’ children, ages four and five.
These people have no shame. As an adoptee myself, I find it extremely distasteful that the NYT has tried to unseal the adoption records of John Robert’s children. When someone is nominated for the Supreme Court, the MSM does not get a fishing license to dig up dirt on the nominees wife and children. How low will they go in their attempts to derail Judge Roberts confirmation? Somehow, I think they’re just beginning to dig.
Tags:
This post has 6 comments
August 11th, 2005
Do you have any decency at all? The NYT hasn’t tried to unseal their adoption records. Do you believe every single thing you read in the far right press? I realize you’ll delete this like you have in the past when I’ve countered your lies, but you really need to work at making honest statements.
[Reply]
August 11th, 2005
The NYT has admitted to assign a reporter to look into the Roberts children’s adoption records. It’s not just the far right press that’s reporting on this. Go to http://news.google.com and type in "Judge Roberts Adoption" it brings up several articles. Not all of them from right-wing web sites.
(It’s amazing how Haywood always attacks the source of information and never addresses the substance of the argument.)
[Reply]
August 11th, 2005
You said that they tried to unseal the adoption records. This is a lie. Why can’t you admit your lie and set the record straight? Is truth unimportant to you?
[Reply]
August 12th, 2005
“Initial inquiries” means they started the process of trying to unseal the adoption records, but they ran into a brick wall.
Why are all your arguments based on the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum?
[Reply]
August 12th, 2005
No it doesn’t mean that. Why is so much of what you say dishonest?
You might want to look up the term argumentum ad baculum before you use it again.
[Reply]
August 12th, 2005
You have one interpretation of “initial inquiries,” I have a different interpretation. Let’s leave it at that.
argumentum ad baculum = “argument to the stick”
Which means abusing someone instead of reasoning with him. That’s what Haywood does everytime he calls someone a liar.
[Reply]