Sunday, July 31, 2016

NYT A Few BS On Immigration

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial
 Now it seems the New York Times editorial board are experts on immigration now LMAO. Their piece of crap this morning "A Few Simple Truths on Immigration" is their grotesque take on immigration while attacking Donald Trump.
 It begins "Donald Trump and his allies at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland peddled two falsehoods about America’s immigration problem. One was the vision presented by speaker after speaker of a nation overrun with foreigners crossing American borders and infiltrating communities to rob and kill. Another was the notion that most Americans are desperate for the kind of tough-guy response — including massive deportation and building a wall — that Mr. Trump offers as his solution."
 Well ok NYT what are the undocumented (politically correct term for illegal immigrants) doing here then? Yes we need the tough guy approach in dealing with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION its called deportation.
 It goes on "A careful examination of the facts undermines both claims. It is true that this is a complex issue inspiring strong passions. But its resolution, or at least progress toward a resolution, requires clear thinking. It benefits not at all from wild and poisonous assertions. People on all sides of this issue, including Republicans of good will who might be seduced by Mr. Trump’s hyperbole, would do well to take a moment or more to reflect on a few simple truths.
One is that the country is divided over immigration, but not nearly as much as Mr. Trump claims. Americans by wide margins have long supported the principles of sensible immigration reform: modernized laws to better match workers and jobs, strong border security (though not the equivalent of a 2,000-mile wall), better workplace standards and wages, and an opportunity for the 11 million immigrants living outside the law to earn inclusion and citizenship.
Recent polling from the Pew Research Center is instructive: Fifty-nine percent of the public said immigrants “strengthen the country,” while only 33 percent said they were a burden. And 75 percent said immigrants should be allowed to stay legally, if they meet certain conditions. These principles — recognizing the good that immigrants do for the country and rejecting the folly of high walls and mass expulsion — are the basis of the reform legislation that Mr. Trump so deplores as “amnesty” and that many Republicans themselves support. As recently as 2013, bipartisan reform legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to 32."
  The facts since when NYT you are non fact people and the Pew research center literally STINKS yes pun intended.
  It ends "In Cleveland, Mr. Trump led his party down a path devoid of facts, despite the grieving parents offered up as evidence that all immigrants are killers and despite former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s screams about the end of America. The last 20 years of immigration have been matched by big declines in crime, and more than a century of research shows that immigrants are less prone to crime than native-born Americans.
Leading Republicans who could rebut these assertions have not done so. Senator John McCain — the author of one of the last big attempts at bipartisan immigration reform — stands with Mr. Trump. Senator Marco Rubio, who is running for re-election, has a new ad boasting about his courage in blocking refugees from “terrorist countries.”
So it is left to Hillary Clinton to put things right. She has promised to do better on immigration than President Obama, who will leave office having failed to win comprehensive reform, while setting a record for aggressive deportations and persisting in the misguided detention of tens of thousands of Central American refugee mothers and children. Mrs. Clinton has campaigned in defense of immigrant families and workers’ rights, and has promised to take executive actions that expand Mr. Obama’s programs protecting millions of immigrants from deportation.
Mrs. Clinton knows she needs to seize and hold the ground of American values, and it helped that the Democratic convention so proudly celebrated inclusion.
  In green type that's not facts but pure bullshit.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

NYT Get Your Facts Straight

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial

 Once again the New York Times is proven once again to be the liars and the bullshit artists that they are and did it while swooning over Hillary Clinton clinching the Democrat Party nomination and NOT I say Not becoming the first woman to win the nomination as President of a political party.
 This lead oped from Yesterday proves that they don't do their research "Hillary Clinton Makes History."
 It begins "Hillary Clinton’s life, in many respects, traces the arc of progress for women in American society. Her mother, Dorothy Rodham, was born in 1919, a year before the 19th Amendment gave women the vote.It has taken a long, long time for that amendment’s promise of women’s full participation in American democracy to be realized. Mrs. Clinton moved it a big step closer this week, as she became the first woman nominated for the presidency by a major party."
 What I highlighted in green is a bullshit lie heres the truth A woman from Ohio way way back in 1872 her name Victoria Woodhull was nominated by the EQUAL RIGHTS party to run for President of the United States of America. This great woman did more than Hillary could ever dream of for womens rights she campaigned for the womens sufferage  and equal rights and child labor reform laws.
 But I don't expect the leaders of the lamestream media the NYT to do their homework.
 The lie goes on "Mrs. Clinton’s nomination — bringing women, barred first by law and then by custom, to the pinnacle of American politics — is to be celebrated as inspiration for young Americans, and as hope for women in nations and cultures that deny them the most basic opportunities. It is further proof that opening doors to women elevates and strengthens our nation.
At a moment when political discourse is divisive and dark, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged stiff challenges but summoned optimism in her call Thursday night for Americans to work together. “America is once again at a moment of reckoning,” she said. “Bonds of trust and respect are fraying,” she said. “We are cleareyed about what our country is up against. But we are not afraid. We will rise to the challenge, just as we always have.”
Mrs. Clinton, who grew up in an era of few opportunities for women, revealed strength and tenacity building a career that spanned the world. Her education and work ethic eventually opened many avenues to her, and — despite forays into lucrative and sometimes regrettable pursuits like her corporate speechmaking — she has always returned to a path of service.
  I would be very afraid if Hillary Clinton becomes President.
  It ends lol finally here comes the NYT Swooning "For four decades, Mrs. Clinton has listened to and spoken for children and the poor. She has absorbed personal and professional blows that would have left others on the canvas, and she has delivered some, too. Few politicians, and certainly not her opponent, have the intellectual heft that she brings to the race for the White House.
Some Americans remain deeply uncomfortable with women leading corporations, let alone the free world. No woman is more aware of this than Mrs. Clinton, who has struggled as first lady, senator and secretary of state to strike the right balance between what society expected of women and what she aspired to accomplish.
The first time Mrs. Clinton ran for president, in 2008, she all but ignored the historic nature of her candidacy; this time she has embraced it. Yet lingering uncertainty over how to combine Mrs. Clinton’s skills, experience and femininity into a winning package was apparent during this week’s convention, as Democrats and her own husband toggled awkwardly between portraying her as a mother and wife, and as a potential commander in chief.
When Barack Obama was inaugurated as the nation’s first African-American president, historians wondered what combination of qualifications, experience and personality made him, of all black leaders, the one to break through that barrier. Such questions are, if anything, even sharper for Mrs. Clinton. Is she the nominee because she has more relevant experience than just about any candidate for the presidency, or because she is the wife of a former president? Skeptical voters have scrutinized her age, voice, tone, even clothing as qualifiers for the White House. Small wonder women make up less than one-fifth of Congress, and only six are governors.Mrs. Clinton’s rise has not been smooth or particularly graceful. Some of her positions seem born more of political expediency than conviction. She can be secretive and defensive. Her failure to hold an open news conference for months shows a reluctance to submit to legitimate questions. Her candidacy itself is an act of courage; greater transparency would demonstrate that she does not intend to govern from a position of fear. Her challenge now is to persuade voters to judge her on her merits and ideas, rather than her gender or her husband’s record.
What is already clear is that Mrs. Clinton has had to work fiercely hard, under a withering scrutiny no male candidate would face, and that that hard work has now resulted in a profound service to the nation: A short time ago, the idea that a woman would attain her party’s presidential nomination was beyond audacious; it no longer is.
  In purple what I highlighted struggled as first lady senator and secretary of state.
She should have left Bubba then as A US carpet bagger Senator please and as Secretary of State do I have to mention Benghazi and the very infamous email classified leaks from her personal email server.
 Donald Trump needs to beat her and beat her bad in November


Sunday, July 24, 2016

NYT Way Way Off Base As Usual

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial
 Another hit piece on Trump once again this morning.Their lead piece of shit is "Trumpworld vs. Clintonworld" garbage as usual.
 It begins "The next American president will inherit a world of complex and growing challenges, including terrorism, an increasingly aggressive Russia and a Europe fracturing under economic and security stresses.How might American national security and foreign policy change under Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, or Hillary Clinton, who is set to secure the Democratic nod this week?Mr. Trump is pushing radical nationalist and isolationist ideas that do not square with his own party’s platform. He has a fallacious view of America as a nation in decline and disrespected abroad, and his plans to disengage from the world, tear up trade deals and use bullying tactics would be irrational and dangerous."
 Yes the next President will inherit this from a failed 8 years of bullshit. NYT keep your know nothing nose out of the GOP platform ok please.We are already disrespected abroad because of Obama's failed policies.
 It goes on "Mr. Trump said last week that under his leadership, America’s seven-decade-long commitment to NATO would be conditional — dependent on his conditions — an approach that would threaten the nation’s international role and put at risk a Western-led world order.
In an interview with The Times last Wednesday, he said his willingness to defend Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all NATO members, against Russia would rest on whether they have “fulfilled their obligations to us,” presumably by spending more on defense. NATO’s commitment to defend its members against an attack is supposed to be sacrosanct; Mr. Trump’s approach would play into the hands of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, who is eager to have NATO unravel, since that would allow him more freedom to expand Russian influence.
Mr. Trump has also questioned the merit of deploying troops overseas, including in Japan and South Korea, where a withdrawal of forces would profoundly affect security in Asia. Such a move would significantly reduce American influence at a time of increasing Chinese aggression. And he has said he would not press President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, a NATO ally who has suspended, detained or placed under investigation more than 60,000 people in a post-coup attempt frenzy, to respect the rule of law. Nor would he make promoting human rights abroad — a central tenet of American foreign policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations — part of his agenda, since he says America has no moral authority to make such a case.
As for deterring terrorism, Mr. Trump’s primary proposal is to ban Muslim immigration to the United States. He refuses to say how he would tackle the Islamic State or other extremists differently than the Obama administration has, despite orchestrating a political convention that made defeating terrorism a focus."
  Here we go NYT editorial board are experts on foreign policy NOT!
  It ends "Mrs. Clinton’s long record makes it easier to predict how she views America’s role in the world. As secretary of state, she hewed to President Obama’s policies, but there were differences there, too. She is somewhat more willing to intervene militarily. She was an early supporter of arming and training Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad, and that approach was rejected by Mr. Obama. She has long called for a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, which would require significant military resources and possibly airstrikes. She was a strong proponent of taking a role in the overthrow of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, but there was too little effort afterward to reduce the factionalism that has sent the country reeling into chaos.
Mrs. Clinton believes strongly in diplomacy backed by military strength. She helped to put in place tough international sanctions on Iran that led to the important nuclear deal last year. And she would maintain strong cooperation with NATO allies, including cooperation in addressing terrorism from ISIS and other groups.Even when candidates start out untested, one assumes that they will do what is needed to prepare themselves for the presidency.
But Mr. Trump seems to care very little about relations between nations. His arrogance is boundless on this issue, as it is on most subjects. He has boasted that he does not need foreign policy advisers because his own brain is sufficient to guide him. It is unclear, even now, whether he is listening to anyone."
 Oh NYT how soon we forget the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi Libya under her watch as Secretary Of State and the email fiasco.
Hillary Clinton is an outright fraud liar and scam artist she doesnnot deserve to be President she cannot be trusted period

Saturday, July 23, 2016

NYT Lies On Trump Post RNC Acceptance Speech

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial


  This was the New York Times lead OPED yesterday morning after newly minted GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump gave his great acceptance speech to the RNC in Cleveland ,Ohio.
  It is entitled "Donald Trump’s Campaign of Fear" the usual bullshit from their Communist mouths from July 22.(just for today I'm putting the NYT words in pink because they are pussies)
 It begins "Donald Trump ascended the dais on Thursday night as the most improbable of Republican presidential nominees.What historical shift, what tremors in American culture, yielded up Mr. Trump’s moment from the depths of the national id? How did a braggadocious Manhattan billionaire with a history of dodgy business deals convince 13 million people feeling battered by a changing world that he is their solution? Chutzpah, reality TV and a hyperactive Twitter account are part of the answer. But Mr. Trump’s nomination is also a referendum on the Republican Party, delivered by working people fed up with leaders who want their votes but don’t address their struggles.
Given a chance to replace the empty sloganeering and self-aggrandizement of his primary campaign with solid proposals worthy of Americans’ trust, Mr. Trump made clear that he instead intends to terrify voters into supporting him, who will protect them from violence, a word that occurs over and over in his remarks."
 No NYT he stands for the truth as opposed to the usual bullshit establishment.
  It goes on "Asserting that his nomination comes at a moment of national crisis, of “poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad,” Mr. Trump offered no solutions beyond his messianic portrayal of himself. “Every day I wake up determined to deliver a better life for the people all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned,” he says in advance excerpts from his speech.The dark vision of America advanced by Mr. Trump is one in which immigrants, including immigrant families, are prime sources of “violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities.” Abroad, America is a disrespected, humiliated nation.
This is not only factually false, it’s a wildly distorted view of all the nation stands for. One would think that if Mr. Trump believed this dystopia existed, he would have a clear and detailed plan for change. But, as always, he has only his empty sales pitch to offer — “I’m with you, I will fight for you, and I will win for you,” he says.
Mr. Trump trounced 16 rivals and won 37 states by crude, boastful force. Refusing ever to acknowledge error, he has aimed to “knock the hell” out of all who rejected his vision of an America made great again, denying inconvenient facts or inventing convenient ones.
The more he was dismissed by Republican politicians, the more he fired up voters angered by the same treatment. In the end virtually nobody in active Republican leadership stood up to him. He dispatched Jeb Bush, scion of the party’s old guard, early on. When the House speaker, Paul Ryan, didn’t immediately endorse Mr. Trump, he lashed out, saying that Mr. Ryan was “not ready” to support his big-think agenda. Soon after, Mr. Ryan crumpled, and now, almost daily, he offers weak defenses of Mr. Trump’s ideas and conduct.
Ted Cruz, Mr. Trump’s chief primary rival, has emerged as one of the few Republicans to look beyond this political cycle, consider his own honor, and refuse to truckle to the nominee. Mr. Trump savaged Mr. Cruz during the primaries, sowing doubts about his citizenship, encouraging misogynistic attacks on his wife, and implying that his father was involved in John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Mr. Cruz used his prime-time convention speaking slot on Wednesday to exact revenge, speaking for more than 20 minutes without endorsing Mr. Trump, while the candidate stewed."
  Excuse me NYT messianic Obama to you morons was messianic and turned out to be a fraud.
 It ends thank God "It was doubtless a calculated move on Mr. Cruz’s part, but it was refreshing to see Mr. Trump at last reap some consequences for his vile tactics.
The consequences for the Republican Party still lie ahead. Mr. Trump emerged as a political force with the racist claim that President Obama was not born in the United States. He has since sought advantage by playing to disaffected people’s worst instincts, inventing scapegoats and conspiracy theories, waging and inciting vicious attacks on those who disagree with him. He is a poisonous messenger for a legitimate demand: that an ossified party dedicate itself to improving working people’s lives, instead of serving the elite."
  Hey NYT all of a sudden Ted Cruz matters to you shitheads it figures he's a back stabber like you.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

NYT Knows How To Fight Terrorists LMAO!

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial

  The New York Times editorial board knows how to fight terrorists now and they think they have become experts at that now LMAO! "Our Best Defense Against Terrorists" is the title of one of their shitheaded editorials  this morning.
 It begins "How we react to terrorism has become a measure of who we are, as individuals and as a society. It is not clear yet whether the heinous massacre in Nice, France, was the work of a “lone wolf” or a terrorist network, but in a way it doesn’t matter. Each new attack, each new convulsion of fear, horror, grief and anger is a progressively greater test of enlightened civilization’s commitment to its core values. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the 31-year-old Tunisian who drove a truck through a festive nighttime crowd celebrating Bastille Day on Nice’s seaside promenade, may well have been avenging some personal grievance with the weapon closest at hand. Or it may emerge that ISIS or some other organized terrorists pushed him to this atrocity, targeting France — the country with the largest Muslim population in Europe and the strongest embrace of secularism — for the third time in 19 months.But whoever struck the blow, whatever its malevolent purpose or toll, the response cannot be to abandon the respect for human rights, equality, reason and tolerance that is the aspiration of all democratic cultures. Though it has become almost a cliché to argue that the goal of terrorists is to bring their victims down to their moral level, it is also a truth, and it must be reaffirmed after every attack."
  ISIS is always involved these days.NYT dumb asses.
  It goes on "That is what the French prime minister, Manuel Valls, did in the wake of the assault. Warning France that it had to learn to live with terrorism, he declared that the only dignified response was for the French to remain faithful to the spirit of July 14, “which means a France brought together and united around its values.”
That is not to say that political leaders should take no action. Mr. Valls and President François Hollande cannot be faulted for assuming in the immediate aftermath of so vicious an attack on so exalted a day that it had been an act of terrorism, nor for extending the state of emergency — a measure giving the police extraordinary powers to search and detain suspected terrorists — for three more months. Only hours before the slaughter, Mr. Hollande had made clear that a state of emergency could not become the normal state of affairs: “That would be saying that we are no longer a republic with law that is applicable in all circumstances,” he declared.
Not surprisingly, the National Front, the right-wing party that thrives on aversion to Muslim immigrants, reacted disdainfully to these statements. “Spare us the indignation of the vultures of the main parties who let the wolves in to carry out this carnage,” declared Eric Domard, a senior adviser to the National Front leader Marine Le Pen."
 NYT you coddle terrorists you know it.
  It ends thank God "Far more disgraceful and frightening was the reaction of Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House and a possible cabinet secretary should Donald Trump become president. He proposed that every person “who is of a Muslim background” be tested for adherence to Shariah law, and those who supported it be deported. He also suggested that mosques in America be monitored.
Apart from demonstrating Mr. Gingrich’s woeful ignorance of Shariah, his outrageous proposals would violate several Supreme Court rulings, constitutional amendments and laws barring discrimination on the basis of religion or restrictions of freedom of expression and belief. And in so doing, his ideas illustrated the greatest threat posed by terrorism: a descent into the lawless, hateful demagogy of those who despise the West and its values.
As Mr. Valls and many others have warned, there will be more terrorist attacks. More innocent lives will be lost. There is no way that the police can track every vengeance-seeking potential killer or neutralize every weapon as commonplace as a truck. What threatened nations and their leaders can do is to firmly instill the idea that the only sure defense is to stay true to what democratic societies really stand for."
  What I highlighted in red what is wrong with that oh wait the NYT is afraid that we will offend Muslims so fn what.
 

Monday, July 4, 2016

NYT Knows Nothing About Freedom

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial



The New York Times as usual have nothing coming from their liberal left wing nut mouths especially this morning when our great nation celebrates another year of independence from England.
 Freedom, Fireworks and Brexit is the title of their lead oped this morning.
 It begins "This year, the commemoration of the break with the British Empire on the Fourth of July is particularly rich in material for mulling the state of democracy and trans-Atlantic relations.
Those who voted for Britain to leave the European Union, and their admirers in the United States and Europe, will no doubt aver that this is a similar break with an unresponsive, alien power and a bold bid by a free people to take control of their destiny. As Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party in France, wrote recently in The Times, “The decision that the people of Britain have just made was indeed an act of courage — the courage of a people who embrace their freedom.”
The trouble with that argument, like many others advanced by the Leave crowd in Britain — as well as by Donald Trump’s nativist legions in the United States and by the xenophobic parties across Europe — is that it’s wrong.
The “Brussels” against which British voters rebelled is not the “absolute Despotism” that the authors of the Declaration of Independence broke with, but a bureaucracy answerable to 28 contentious governments that has never constrained British sovereignty in defense or fiscal policy, or in dealing with refugees from outside the E.U. And as the Britons will soon realize to their regret, they benefited handsomely from participating in a large common market."
 Yeah wrong to you NYT right for us with common sense who don't use political correctness as part of their reasoning lol.
 Goes on "All that has been amply chronicled, along with the real motives behind the Leave vote (and the politically analogous Trump phenomenon): the sense among older, provincial, white voters that they are somehow being marginalized by globalization; a nostalgia for a simpler and often mythical past.
Sure, there are valid plaints about the European Union and about globalization to which politicians should pay heed. But that isn’t why Leave won. It won because demagogic politicians like Nigel Farage of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) had no scruples about playing on base fears that swarms of people of different colors and religions were threatening to overwhelm the native way of life. That is also Mr. Trump’s refrain and the core message of right-wing demagogues across Europe, from Ms. Le Pen to Geert Wilders in the Netherlands."
  NYT using race again here we go more bull shit.
 It ends "They would argue, in the populist tradition, that the British referendum demonstrated the will of the people and was therefore richly democratic. Referendums may have their occasional role in democracy, but if abolition, voting rights, or same-sex marriage, for example, had been put to national referendums, who knows where we’d be? As a Tory (and staunchly pro-Europe) prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, once argued, referendums sacrifice constitutional protections and parliamentary sovereignty to political expediency.
The Declaration of Independence exists on an entirely different moral plane. Its invocation of the natural and legal rights of people born equal is the standard for human rights the world over. And the political system created on its principles made sure to protect these self-evident truths from public passions.
So perhaps on this Fourth of July, Americans should once again proclaim a break with Britain — this time a break with the misguided British vote to turn back the clock on freedom of movement, on tolerance, on diversity, on free trade, on all the things that have made the free world great."
A moral plane what does the NYT know about morals dumb asses.
Oh I see the vote by the British was misguided because it didn't agree with the bullshit mantra of the NYT editorial board with their political correctness of tolerance and diversity remember liberals preach it but don't practice it