"That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges)."
I didn't deny that.
Then why alter the quote to make it appear that the Times thought it was a smear when that is blatenly false? You also started the whole thread and said that no one other than Fox news was spending any meaningful time on Menendez. A quick search shows that the NYTs has written a few articles on it. But why do you think the NYT found it relevent to mention that some paid GOP operatives are involved?
The latest article was about how the story developed. The Times didn't in any away argue that it was false.If the story is true, why mention the source? The answer, is to diminish the seriousness of teh charges, and shift some of the blame to Senator Menendez's political opponents.
They didn't do that (other than the child prostitution charge - you're really reaching now
"Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them"
Earlier, you made some smug comment to one of the conservatives here about the fact that if he couldn't do the google searches on his own, you'd help him with it. Let's assume you are capable of doing the same Google search I did.
I did a search on the NYT site and found that they didn't give the press you seem to think they did to Rubio's water problem. I did the search BEFOFE I posted so I wouldn't look as silly as you do right now.
I found coverage in the NYT of the Rubio water drinking.
How much? Bc your first post said that "All the news stations are going crazy....." Back up your words and show me how the Times is "going crazy" over the issue! Even if I hadn't, my point about media bias was still valid. I did not say that every single liberal media outlet, with zero exceptions, was trumping up the Rubio water thing.
So what do your words "All the news stations are going crazy" mean then? You're the one who finds one example of what you don't like and apply that to all liberals or in this case the news stations. Had I said that
it seems like you did say that by the use of your word all, your responses would be relevent. Since I didn't say that
, your responses are not as relevent, though they are somewhat relevent. Pointing out one single exception does not refute a generalized
the use of the word all is a generalization?statement.
Yet I have pointed out that is exactly what you have done numerous times on this sight.
I see you won't comment on MSNBC's coverages of the Rubio water drinking, versus their coverage of the Menendez thing. I wonder why that could be? Hmmm, that's a real head-scratcher.
I'm not a big follower of MSNBC. If they did cover Rubio leaching water like a dehumidifer in Mississippi in July, so be it. Maybe they should have covered Obama using a teleprompter - seeing how much has that been discussed here
.