The New York Times and Taco Stand offers an “apology.”

Here is the letter from Executive Editor Dean Baquet. My thoughts begin after.


Let’s take it from the top:


Keyword: Cover. As in Cover Your Ass. They realized they screwed up and had to find a way to appear impartial. Sadly, for most Americans that ship sailed decades ago and sunk in transit.



Translation: “What the royal f*** happened? All the f***ing ink we spent trying to influence other media outlets and indoctrinate people went to waste! The bulls*** did not take? Must be because Rednecks can’t read.”



Translation “You dumb fu**ing Rednecks screwed the 8-year vacation we were having with Obama and now we are going to be forced to actually come up with more creative bulls*** and accuse Trump of any imaginable fault and crime there is in the world.  Do you know how hard it is to actually be creative? It was easier just to cover up the wrongdoings of the Obama Administration.”


Yes, you can laugh out loud. Although apparently it is impolite to do so at the beliefs of other. Screw them.



In other words, be ready for the hatchet jobs they will continue to pounce on President-Elect Trump and cover the crap from the Democrats. They ain’t about to change. Leopards, spots, etc.



Translation: “We have been taking it up the rectum with dwindling subscriptions and loss of internet revenue. Hell, you may even seen the ads on TV trying to sell the Sunday Edition in Fly Over country. Yes, we are that desperate for money.  Please remain with us or the Taco Vendor is gonna sell us and use the building as refuge for ‘undocumented aliens.’ It seems he took a big loss in the market when Oompa Loompa won the election.”

I hate faux apologies. Did you notice? And no, I do not expect they will change a bit or become honest just because Hillary lost the election. I do believe they will become even more intellectually fraudulent.

7 Replies to “The New York Times and Taco Stand offers an “apology.””

  1. Actually, they did everything they could to NOT cover it impartially. I was skipping around the various news websites, and when a conservative website I can’t remember had Trump with 255 electoral votes, and another had him with 244, the New York Times and all the newspapers that followed it had him with 222. The Times never acknowledged that Trump had gotten Wisconsin or Pennsylvania until at least an hour after both states had been called for him.
    I guess they thought if they waited long enough, the fraud machine would produce enough car-trunk votes to flip it.


  2. Not only did the NYT try to cover the election in biased fashion, they admitted their job was to “stop Trump” from being elected. Further, MSfuckinNBC called them out for their headline the day after the election:

    I’m sure this letter is really sincere.



  3. If anything, I think what this story is all about is that with the election of a Republican, they think it’s time to turn into government watchdogs again.

    Remember the homeless population and the millions of folks who gave up looking for a job? They’re about to be front page news again. Any sort of government corruption story will be in the news.

    All that will change back when another democrat is eventually elected.

    In other words, same sh*t, different day.


  4. Actions speak, talk is cheap. When the Times runs as many articles demanding the Hillary/Huma Axis get prosecuted for the literally hundreds of felonies they’ve committed as they did trying desperately to link GWB and Don Rumsfeld to the naked man-pyramid at Abu Gharib, I’ll believe they’ve come around. Until then the whole Sulzberger Family can kiss my ass.


  5. They sound like a prostitute trying to regain her reputation.

    They will FOREVER be the water carrying whores for Obama, the Hildabeast, and the evil Democrats. I hope they file for Chapter 11.



Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .