Posted on 12/02/2005 7:01:20 AM PST by BJClinton
No sympathy here, I cancelled my subscription years ago. My father complained in the 1950's they were a liberal biased paper. I remember hearing this as a small child. The chased the Herald Examiner out of existance.
Now turn about is fair play, bye bye LA Slimes...
Those of us who followed the Rodney King and Simpson cases often asked the same question. The Times has been in "agenda de jur" mode for many, many years.
Interesting. Bump to read later.
To the contrary. The L.A. Times, in 1992, ran a week long editorial special on how to confiscate all private firearms in the USA without violating the 2nd., 4th., and 5th. Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Oh they're plenty left all right.
Must-read ping.
Read later....BUMP
To paraphrase Yogi Berra;
If Joe Friday was still alive,he would be turning over in his grave.
That must have been quite a special considering how it's impossible.
<< The Democrat culture of corruption strikes again. >>
Only close.
The ever more malignantly-metastasizing Democrat culture of corruption never pauses nor "strkes again."
It is relentless.
SoCal BUMPping
read later.
(What was the Rampart scandal. It didn't elaborate in the first mention of it. Maybe they explain more later on in the article.)
Not according to the then editor of the Times, Shelby Coffey. The paper used both pages in the editorial section over five days in an attempt to explain how it could be done "constitutionally". They had law professors Alan Dershowitz and Lawrence Tribe, all the left lawyers of the East as advisors and columnists. It was amazing. But then that's the L.A. Times. It's been crazy since the Chandler family worried about Otis being outed as gay.
Let me guess...the esteemed legal scholars all basically said that the constitution doesn't actually mean what it says.
A coincidence? I though it was some kind of requirement.
After the Rodney King beating the LAPD had to hire a bunch of minorities. They ended up hiring a bunch of gangstas and put them in the anti-gang division, Rampart. The Rampart division then became every bit as evil as the gangs. Basically gangs with badges.
Sorta', it meant what "they" said it meant. You know, the old tired red herring that the 2nd. Amendment only authorized a state to bear arms & etc. It was all trash. A civil rights pig put in a dress, lipstick applied, and then presented as sophisticated constitutional theory. I'd like to find a copy of the whole mess and post it on the internet for all to see. The resemblance to a Soviet style police state was chilling.
Thanks for the post. Reads like a good detective story, which it is. Can't wait to read the rest this evening.
This has been going on for yrs corruption, lying articles...but with the new media...these jerk offs can NO longer get away with it. LOL ;o) I'm lovin' it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.