Ooooo — that one took me a while – hee hee
The other side did do it too in retaliation.
In fact these same hypocrites condone the numerous murders of unarmed kids & make excuses for them. These people do not deserve one iota of humoring.
Sure the times should not have published it. It was stupid, unnecessary and somewhat immoral but it pales in comparison to people who murder unarmed kids or even the supremacist enablers/apologists who repeatedly make excuses for this behavior of murderers of unarmed kids.
Whether you believe all dark skinned people are automatically thugs, the N word or whatever, this evil & gross immorality in US society and the world needs to end.
Freaking judge individuals not specific traits or groups. Is that so hard? That’s way stupider than what NYT did, as stupid as that was.
The Constitution respects the civil rights of thugs too not just the lighter complected ones either. The hypocrites constantly yelling Constitution need to be consistent every once in a while not just when it’s convenient to advance their personal selfish agendas. Other people live in the world too not just them. We can all share and coexist with minimal effort. People just make it so damn hard. Humans are sooooo selfish and greedy. Grrrrr.
2 Likes
True, but the Times should know better. Just more of that poor journalistic insight and recklessness that is gradually becoming the norm in the media. Any 15 YO knows better than to publish a controversial person’s address. I’m not sure I’d let them off that easy as being simply clumsy because they know better or should. They’re both immoral, but I do believe the other people are much worse, for whatever that’s worth. As you said 2 wrongs don’t make a right, so…this is where we’re at.
1 Like
you and me both
IKR. Hence the whole basis of assumptions and prejudices including bigotry.
DO you?
The information was public record.
The release of a bogus video of a non existent robbery was not.
How dare the NY Times post the street name … without the number!!!
1 Like
Good one. Haha.
And registered at Blood Bath and Beyond!
Thank you Simpsons!
3 Likes
Two wrongs don’t make a right but they do make context. If you have no problem printing the addresses of your enemies but cry holy hell when it happens to one of yours then you are a two-bit swine.
I amend that … if someone reveals your address and you then reveal THEIRS, that IS justice.
“…pilloried…”
Just don’t tick off Operation Rescue.
Not only did they not publish his phone number, the street name they published is a house that he no longer lives in. So even the present tense being used about the street is misplaced.
A recap: The NYT republished the street name (not the number) of a house that Wilson used to live on, and removed a copy of a marriage certificate which had a law firm (but not any address of Wilson’s).