2. It's worth pondering that the WSJ has asserted that Conrad Black (a convicted felon who received a pardon from a politically sympathetic president) is innocent but the Central Park Five (exonerated with much evidence) are likely guilty.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3. WSJ keeps proving this point: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” -- Frank Wilhoit.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wall st journal is completely right on #1 And completely wrong on #2. Broken clocks are right twice a day.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They let the arsonist write the op-ed
-
They have enough money to sue the WSJ and the arsonist for libel. Might be amusing
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So, you disagree with point 1? Or just bringing it up to point out their general hypocrisy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
‘“binds but does not protect, protects but does not bind”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Folks at the WSJ can easily identify with someone being accused of sexual harassment. They can not identify with being black.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I only read the headline too
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Do you think they just allow anything to be published in their pages?
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
