Is the NY Times into Pedophilia?

Something is not right

Published on August 5, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

The NY Times has decided that the investigation of John Roberts' Children, not John Roberts is SOP. Excuse me? These kids are 4 and 5 years old! What do they have to do with the qualification of John Roberts to the Supreme court? What business is it of the NY Times? Please, someone show me in the constitution where it says that a nominee to the Supreme court must be investigated by the NY Times, or any member of the media?

And while you are at it, show me where it says a nominee's children should also be investigated?

No, this lame attempt at a smear by the old grey lady is nothing less than rampant pedophilia. What the hell do they think they are going to find? That the children hate liver and fuss when made to go to bed?

STOP THE PRESSES

This is just perversion masquerading as news, and not even a good news story at that. I think it is high time that he editors and the reporters of the NY Times be investigated for pedophilia and other perversions. It is growing readily apparent that they don't know how to report the news any longer, just to make it.

And since there is no scandal going on right now, they are going to create their own.

Headlines: Times reporters get nude baby pictures of Roberts' children!

What a bunch of sick animals the times have become.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Aug 05, 2005

The really sick part is the following quote:

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Manopeace

on Aug 05, 2005

I'm confused Doc... I must be missing something about the 'case'.... but where is the pedphelia?

bakerstreet

on Aug 05, 2005

I don't see the pedophelia, either.

It doesn't surprise me about the digging though. It's almost as sick that they style page had to critique the kid's clothes. Probably not metrosexual enough. anyway...

It goes to show how Bush's pick has them skipping and fetching. They desperately want to say "He's a Christian and pro-life, so he can't sit on the bench", but they can't. If they don't come up with some 'he bought his babies' scandal or something, they aren't going to be able to block him with their bigotry.

Dr Guy

on Aug 05, 2005

I'm confused Doc... I must be missing something about the 'case'.... but where is the pedphelia?

It is implied. If someone was investigating your children, what would you think about the investigee? They cannot be investigating scandal or potential crimes.

Manopeace

on Aug 05, 2005

Dr Guy

on Aug 05, 2005

It doesn't surprise me about the digging though. It's almost as sick that they style page had to critique the kid's clothes. Probably not metrosexual enough. anyway...

Drop back a moment. Look at it this way. You go interview for a new job. And then the local newspaper, not your employer starts investigating your daughter. What other conclusion would you draw? I see nothing that a 4 or 5 year old could have done in their life, nor any revelation that could help them. I see a lot of predatory aspects to the times behavior.

shadesofgrey

on Aug 05, 2005

It is implied. If someone was investigating your children, what would you think about the investigee? They cannot be investigating scandal or potential crimes.

I'm not saying that the investigation isn't over the top, because it most certainly is. But I don't think that it implies pedophilia. The NYTimes are investigating the adoptions--of course there could be screwy antics surrounding that (not saying that there are), but, for example, if the adoptions weren't done legally that's a legit thing to know about a potential SCJ.

InfoGeek

on Aug 05, 2005

The NYTimes are investigating the adoptions

God, remember that housekeeper nonsense. Some housekeeper gets paid under the table or has something not right with her immigration, and the nominee gets booted. That got a litte nuts.

You may be right, strings might have been pulled, we won't know until it is looked into. The reporter might have found something that might not have "jived" in some way, perhaps a timeline that did not fit the norm.

I dunno. We will have to see.

IG

Dr Guy

on Aug 05, 2005

I'm not saying that the investigation isn't over the top, because it most certainly is. But I don't think that it implies pedophilia. The NYTimes are investigating the adoptions--of course there could be screwy antics surrounding that (not saying that there are), but, for example, if the adoptions weren't done legally that's a legit thing to know about a potential SCJ.

Now explain how that helps the children? So if someone forgot to dot an i on the adoption papers, it is worth these child's ruined lives to drag THEIR names through the dirt? I call that rape. Maybe not physical, but surely psychological.

Everyone can believe what they want, but if some newspaper started snooping around my children at that young of an age, I would be screaming holy hell. And Pedophilia would be the mildest charge I would bring.

Dr Guy

on Aug 05, 2005

You may be right, strings might have been pulled, we won't know until it is looked into. The reporter might have found something that might not have "jived" in some way, perhaps a timeline that did not fit the norm.

Now tell me how that would be: 1 - Illegal, 2 - Good for the CHildren?

A maid is not a child (and it was illegal aliens that got the nominees busted, not that they were paid under the table). I think it was kind of childish about the maids as well, but that is still like comparing apples to oranges.

InfoGeek

on Aug 05, 2005

Now tell me how that would be: 1 - Illegal

It will not be known if anything illegal was done until it is investigated. Could be that nothing was wrong and it was a false lead, or it could be that they were adopted illegally and Roberts used his positoin to influence the process. As I said. It may have to be looked into.

IG

Dr Guy

on Aug 05, 2005

So on the 1 in a milllion chance that someone forgot to dot an I, you would ruin the lives of 2 children?

I hope like hell you are childless. You are a walking example of what a parent should not be.

shadesofgrey

on Aug 05, 2005

So on the 1 in a milllion chance that someone forgot to dot an I, you would ruin the lives of 2 children?

I'm not talking about forgetting to dot an "i", dr.guy--I'm talking about really illegal stuff (like buying babies on the blackmarket). I'm not saying that it happened, but if you want to be confirmed to one of the highest positions in this country, expect to have your privacy violated.

If nothing was improperly done, there will be no harm, right?

InfoGeek

on Aug 05, 2005

The Drudge report says: The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.

The children are not the issue, how Roberts came by them could be.

There is no need to be insulting.

IG

bakerstreet

on Aug 05, 2005

This is one of those 'balancing extremist' situations I mentioned in my article. There's no pedophelia here, and the children's lives aren't 'ruined' by someone looking into their adoption records.

Do I think it is silly and ethically wrong? Yes. Do I equate it to child molestation and all the rest of this overreaction? Nope, and I think it does a lot to defeat a good point.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!