Still More Fake News To Slur A Deceased President.

The New York Times obituary hardly mentions Perot as being the major factor in Bush's loss in 1992.

The Washington Post couldn’t be bothered to put out an up-to-date obituary, and accidentally posted whatever stock obit they had prepared for Bush. As Slate tech columnist Will Oremus noted on Twitter, the Post’s original article contained the sentence, “Mr. Bush died of SPECIFIC MEDICAL CAUSE OF DEATH, said/according to xxx.”

The New York Times included a reference to its own smear of Bush from 1992 with a photo and mention of the former president being “amazed” at a supermarket scanner.

“His critics saw him as out of touch with ordinary Americans, pointing to what they portrayed as his amazed reaction during a demonstration of a supermarket scanner when he visited a grocers’ convention while president. (He later insisted that he had not been surprised.)”

Bush’s “critics” were a New York Times reporter who made up the incident, which to this day is still believed by some Americans. Ann Compton, another White House reporter who was there that day, wrote in 2014 what actually happened:

“One instance in which the media unfairly caricatured a president was at a grocers’ convention in Florida during the first President Bush’s re-election campaign. I was among the pool reporters watching the president, who was unfailingly gracious in public, praise what his hosts claimed was a dramatic new supermarket scanner. The New York Times, on its front page, ridiculed him, claiming it to be yet another example of how out-of-touch he was with average American voters. In fact, the invention was new; it could instantly read a bar code that had been ripped up into small pieces and scattered over the scanner. The newspaper declined to post a correction, and its account lives on.”

Even the liberal “fact-checking” website Snopes rated the scanner claim as “false,” yet here it is, 26 years later, and the New York Times still pretends this actually happened.

(The Daily Wire)

.

The New York Times obituary hardly mentions Perot as being the major factor in Bush's loss in 1992.


. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Good one IB. Keep it Alive! Is this the same reporter that did the Willie Horton story? I remember the Willie Horton story after all these years, I don't seem to remember the one you referenced

Good one IB. Keep it Alive! Is this the same reporter that did the Willie Horton story? I remember the Willie Horton story after all these years, I don't seem to remember the one you referenced Originally Posted by themystic

Willie Horton was a bad and deplorable person.

George Bush was a good person.

my brother still blames Perot. to this very day.

my brother still blames Perot. to this very day. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Perot is as much to blame for Clinton as Pat Buchanan is to blame for Bush jr.


I just wonder if Putin us going to sponsor that Green Party bitch again in 2020?

Willie Horton was a bad and deplorable person.

George Bush was a good person. Originally Posted by friendly fred

41 had nothing to do with that add either.

Perot is as much to blame for Clinton as Pat Buchanan is to blame for Bush jr.


I just wonder if Putin us going to sponsor that Green Party bitch again in 2020? Originally Posted by WTF

We can only hope.

Heck, I will donate to her cause, or any other candidate that will drain votes from who ever the Democrsts nominate.

In the mean time we Republicans need to convince all the Libertarians and the like to forget about all of that 3d party bullshit. Presidents are elected by Electorial Votes.

Good one IB. Keep it Alive! Is this the same reporter that did the Willie Horton story? I remember the Willie Horton story after all these years, I don't seem to remember the one you referenced Originally Posted by themystic

What about the Willie Horton add wasn’t true.

I think they said he committed twenty rapes, but it was only 18.5.

Fake news motherfuckers.

I think they said he committed twenty rapes, but it was only 18.5.

Fake news motherfuckers.

What about the Willie Horton add wasn’t true. Originally Posted by bambino

They said he raped like 20 women, and it turns out he only raped 18.5.

Fake news motherfuckers!!

What about the Willie Horton add wasn’t true. Originally Posted by bambino

They said he raped like 20 women, and it turns out he only raped 18.5.

Fake news motherfuckers!!

Good one IB. Keep it Alive! Is this the same reporter that did the Willie Horton story? I remember the Willie Horton story after all these years, I don't seem to remember the one you referenced Originally Posted by themystic

Perhaps you misunderstood the OP:

"Even the liberal 'fact-checking' website Snopes rated the scanner claim as 'false,' yet here it is, 26 years later, and the New York Times still pretends this actually happened."

The NYT has been pedaling the same "Fake News" story for over 26 years.

Perhaps you misunderstood the OP:

"Even the liberal 'fact-checking' website Snopes rated the scanner claim as 'false,' yet here it is, 26 years later, and the New York Times still pretends this actually happened."

The NYT has been pedaling the same "Fake News" story for over 26 years.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Lol.You crack me up IB! Since they changed the rules on here, I was wondering how some of the more "colorful" posters were going to adjust. Some of them haven't done to well. Although I respect the great deal of research and knowledge you have, plain and simple. You may be the only person on the planet that gives a fuck about some article from 25 years ago. I have publicly acknowledged that Papa Bush had integrity. But he had a shit load of flaws to. Why does the Alt right think everything is so fucking black and white? Some of your buddies insist that Papa Bush had nothing to do with the Willie Horton ad. Please. Give us all a fucking break and quit promoting fake news

They said he raped like 20 women, and it turns out he only raped 18.5.

Fake news motherfuckers!! Originally Posted by friendly fred

so you are saying he got convicted on a technicality?


BASHAHAQAAAA