Pics of Freepers Protesting the New York Times

[sabra]

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/07/10/photos-protesting-the-new-york-times/

:crazy:

[Sherman A1]

1. What Maybe 25 people?

Now there is a major protest for ya.....

[unpossibles]

5. yet they claim it was 100

um... they really are bad at math, aren't they?

[Jack Rabbit]

17. They count like Katherine Harris

Please keep that in mind.

[KansDem]

23. Famous "counts" in history...

"The Long Count"


"The Short Count"

[blm]

2. Freepers are FOR the WashTimes owner who gifted NKorea w/submarines

and millions of dollars. Freepers and fundies, no matter how fiercely they deny it, just scratch them a little and you'll find there is a moonie underneath.

[NoodleBoy]

3. really, how radically different would this all be if a Dem were president

[Big Kahuna]

4. What a bunch of freaks.

[stepnw1f]

6. I Bet They Are Paid Too

That or completely misinformed or both. These people are aiding the terrorists by trying to censor the media. Another Freedom gone, and nopt because of Bin Laden, but because of stupid Republicans.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Appears to have been organized by some rw AM radio station

or something. That stupid banner was professionally made, who paid for it?

[leesa]

8. They got Moses to attend though, that's gotta mean something.

[MadHound]

9. And the idiots still can't spell correctly

Third picture from the top; "It's a 'sin' of The Times" I mean really now, I understand how "moron" could be tough for them to spell correctly, after all, it is five letters and two syllables long. But "sign" is only four letters and one syllable long, they should be getting it right:rofl:

[karlrschneider]

11. I think "sin of the Times" is a deliberate pun...

...

[Posteritatis]

13. A bad one at that; I'm waiting for the secant of the Times, myself. nt

[karlrschneider]

19. Hey, let's not go off on a tangent here...

:evilgrin:

[Posteritatis]

20. Sorry, just trying to find a new angle on things (n/t)

[karlrschneider]

22. Ah, I see you have an acute perception.

;-)

[Posteritatis]

26. To a certain degree, at least (nt)

[INDIA]

12. I think it actually might be play on words

Like the NY Times sinned? To a wingnut it might make sense. To me? Not very funny, or clever.

[Swamp Rat]

10. LOL!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[madokie]

14. shit all I get is boxes with x's in them. wtf

if anybody can tell me why I sure would appreciate it.

[ima_sinnic]

15. I get that too, but click on the link at the top of the OP (nt)

[madokie]

18. geeze, slapping forehead. Thanks I needed my morning laugh badly

and I got it. and they are series!!!! as a heart attack too.:rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

16. they reveal their complete and utter misunderstanding of the issue

first, it's well known that the whole question is a moot and distorted point: it's no "secret" as it has been well-documented how openly * has been talking about this for the past 5 years. second, the idiots are protesting because a newspaper was NOT censored!! why do they hate us for our freedoms? we have our own tinpot wannabe dictator and they seem to APPROVE of that! third, why didn't they protest the WSJ and LATimes, which reported the same story? and fourth, why don't they protest any of the truly traitorous activities of the hijackers of democracy, such as the outing of Valerie Plame, which severely compromised our surveillance of WMD proliferation and endangered other agents? why haven't they protested the fact that their hero *, the Great Pretender, has continued to cover up the details of 9/11? what does he have to hide? are their brains so small they just cannot connect even a few dots to see how "terror" and "9/11" are cues used to make them jump? they are like trained rats in their unthinkingness.

[devilgrrl]

21. Wow! Look at all those WHITE people!!!!!

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Wow. Bright lookin' bunch.

I suppose they'd prefer a corporate-dominated press corps that spends the brief amount of time that it's not intensely scrutinizing "vital-to-the-Republic" stories like runaway brides and missing girls in Aruba, kissing Bush and Cheney's ass.

Oh, wait, that's pretty much what we have, anyway. And the NY Times was right there in early 2003 flogging the Administration's lies about Iraq, helpfully letting them get their extremely expensive, bloody, ill-advised invasion and war.

Shit, I guess there's just no pleasing some people.

[walldude]

25. Where's the protest at the L.A. Times and WSJ..

or for that matter the White House, all places that spilled these not so secret secrets...