Saturday, October 29, 2016

NYT Now Covering Up Clinton Political Hypocrisy

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial

 It doesnot end with being outright political biases now it seems the New York Times its editorial board in particular is into covering up political hypocrisy as now more emails have surfaced via WikiLeaks from the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.
 The OPED this morning a leading embarrassing one to say the least "Emails Again, This Time With Anthony Weiner" politics makes strange bedfellows as the old saying goes LOL.
 It begins "Every time Americans start thinking nothing more can surprise them in this presidential campaign, something detonates to prove them wrong. So it was that on Friday, 11 days from Election Day, the F.B.I. director, James Comey, sent a cryptic letter to Congress saying, “In connection with an unrelated case, the F.B.I. has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent” to its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Whose emails? About what? Do they have any connection to Mrs. Clinton herself? Mr. Comey wasn’t saying. Indeed, he appeared to have no idea. He went on to inform Congress that the F.B.I. “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant,” nor could he even predict how long it would take the F.B.I. to figure that out.
In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement — if not mutual interest — the campaigns of both Mrs. Clinton and Donald Trump demanded, quite correctly, that Mr. Comey provide more information, and fast.
 Funny how the NYT jumps all over FBI director James Comey for finally doing his job unlike when he told Rep.Trey Gowdy  Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee being questioned the first time by the aforementioned Gowdy couldn't get his story staright on the Clinton email bs.
  It goes on "According to numerous reports on Friday evening, the new emails were discovered during the bureau’s investigation of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, an aide and confidante of Mrs. Clinton’s. Mr. Weiner is being investigated in connection with illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina.
Mr. Comey clearly found himself in a bind. On July 5, he disclosed more than the F.B.I. typically does in an investigation, when he announced that the F.B.I. would recommend against the Department of Justice pursue charges against Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified material through what he called her “extremely careless” use of a private server. That same week, he testified before Congress that his investigators had found insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution of Mrs. Clinton. The discovery of a new email trove presented him with a choice between risking opprobrium for not revealing its existence until after the election or delivering his deeply unsatisfying letter on Friday.
  Oh poor poor Hillary now she and her hit squad cannot go after Trump for his alleged sexual misdeeds to other women who have been full of shit anyway LMAO.
 It ends "There is so far no indication that Mr. Comey’s missive means the F.B.I. is “reopening” its investigation into Mrs. Clinton, as hyperventilating Republicans, including Mr. Trump, are suggesting, nor is it an acknowledgment that the F.B.I. erred in its earlier efforts. It doesn’t mean that anybody within the F.B.I. is trying to influence the election, as some panicky Democrats are implying. But without more information, it’s impossible for voters to judge the significance of this discovery as they head to the polls.
Mrs. Clinton, as she has acknowledged, is responsible for this mess, which led Friday night to a gobsmacking headline on CNN: “Weiner Sexting Probe Leads F.B.I. to Review Clinton Case.” If she is elected, she will do well to recall that line should she ever consider being less than forthcoming. Her apparent effort to blunt scrutiny by means of that private server has only led to far more damaging scrutiny and suspicion, with no end in sight.
But Mr. Comey’s failure to provide any specifics about a new, potentially important development, less than two weeks before Election Day, is confounding. As Mr. Comey put it in July, “The American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” They deserve details even more urgently today.
 This could be the final blow to Hillary's Presidential wishes one can only hope

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Teresa Tritch AKA Twit NYT Board Member Gets It Way Way Wrong

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial


 This piece of garbage this morning is done by a Teresa Tritch an editorial board member at the New York Times entitled "Mr. Gingrich’s ‘Big Trump" another hit piece. Its a short piece since they don't have the intelligence to write the truth lol.
 It begins "It’s no big surprise that Newt Gingrich is still a gung-ho adviser to the Trump campaign. Mr. Gingrich has long espoused political views similar to Donald Trump’s.
 No shit Sherlock ya think there Ms.Twit wow no wonder why your on the NYT editorial board shaking my head.
 It goes on "But there is more to the alliance than a meeting of the minds. Mr. Gingrich understands that Mr. Trump appears to be losing not because his message has failed to resonate with Americans but because he is a poor messenger.
“I don’t defend him [Trump] when he wanders off,” Mr. Gingrich recently told ABC News. But “there’s a big Trump and there’s a little Trump,” he said, explaining that the big Trump is the one who has created issues that make “the establishment” very uncomfortable.
“The big Trump,” he said, “is a historic figure.”
With statements like that, Mr. Gingrich is positioning himself as the keeper of the Trump-campaign themes and, by extension, as the politician best able to mobilize Trump supporters going forward."
 No if Trumps message is failing its because of the left wing Communist media barrage that's hitting Trump on a 24 hour 7 day a week biased basis and not covering Hillary Clinton in the same way.
 It ends "In the 1990s, Mr. Gingrich spearheaded the antigovernment movement. As House speaker from 1995 to 1999, he invoked racial stereotypes about African-Americans during debates over welfare reform. During his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, he repeatedly called President Obama the “food stamp president.”
Mr. Gingrich played to birther movement sentiments in 2010 when he said that Mr. Obama exhibited
And now, he is extolling the virtues of “big Trump.” There is a pattern here, and it does not bode well for American politics.
 In red highlight that's pure BULLSHIT. Whats the matter Ms.Twit the truth hurts Obama is the "food stamp" President.Here we go again on the birthing bullshit.
 Hey Twit do your homework (which at the NYT the search for the truth is never done apparently) Hillary Cinton Presidential Campaign back in 2008 was the author of the at the time US Sen.Barack Obama birthing issue.
 Bunch of DUMB DUMB Really DUMB ASSES!!!!



Sunday, October 16, 2016

Kristof Truly An Idiot Moron

Image result for nyt logo
Oped Columnist

   New York Times opinion/editorial columnists are so blinded by their political left wing biases that they cannot use everyday common sense it's laughable. Yes in a nutshell they are that stupid.
  Especially in this mornings post about one Nicolas Kristof a real liberal idiot his piece of crap this morning "If Hillary Clinton Groped Men" I know what you are thinking WHAT? I'm asking myself the same question lol.
 It begins by asking a lame ass question that should not even be asked "Is there a double standard for women in politics?
 You can't be serious instead of looking into the bullshit lies brought forth by Trump's accusers he asks that dumb question.
 It goes on "Imagine if it were Hillary Clinton who had had five children by three husbands, who had said it was fine to refer to her daughter as a “piece of ass,” who participated in a radio conversation about oral sex in a hot tub, who rated men based on their body parts, who showed up in Playboy soft porn videos.
Imagine if 15 men had accused Clinton of assaulting or violating them, with more stepping forward each day.
Imagine if Clinton had held a Mr. Teen USA pageant and then marched unannounced into the changing area to ogle the young bodies as some were naked and, after doing the same thing at a Mr. USA pageant, marveled on a radio show at what she was allowed to get away with.
Imagine if in a primary election debate Clinton had boasted that there’s “no problem” with the size of her vagina.
Imagine if Clinton had less experience in government or the military than any person who has ever become president?
Imagine if it were Clinton who had boasted, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
 Here's the difference Hillary's husband Bill did do these things to women and she involved herself in their affairs.
  It continues "Imagine if it were Clinton who had been caught on a hot mike referring in a degrading way to men’s genitals and boasting that her prominence gave her license to grab men’s crotches.                  
Imagine if she had bragged about her attempts to commit adultery — and later reportedly sought to have fired from his job the married man who resisted her seduction efforts.
Imagine that it were Hillary Clinton who had been accused of assault by her first spouse (later recanted) and later of assault in a lawsuit by a business partner.
Imagine if Clinton had defended herself from an accusation of molesting a young man by explaining, “He would not be my first choice, that I can tell you.”
Imagine if Clinton had body shamed Donald Trump, saying that she had observed his rear end and concluded, “I’m not impressed, believe me.”
Imagine if Hillary Clinton had first drawn national attention not with an idealistic speech at the Wellesley commencement, but by being sued for racial discrimination by President Richard Nixon’s administration.
 Imagine if you Kristof grew a pair and investigated the Clinton foundation as much as you look into the bs on Trump you'd be a real journalist.
 It ends "Imagine if she had later been quoted by a member of her staff as saying “laziness is a trait in blacks” and had retweeted white supremacists, including one honoring the American Nazi Party.
Imagine if it were Clinton who had gone through six bankruptcies and compiled a long record of stiffing contractors, from plumbers to painters to lawyers.
Imagine if it were Clinton who had ordered $100,000 worth of pianos from a small music store in Freehold, N.J., and then announced months after taking delivery that she would pay only $70,000. And if the owner recalled: “Because of Clinton, my store stagnated for a couple of years. It made me feel really bad, like I’d been taken advantage of. I was embarrassed.”
Imagine if it were Hillary Clinton who had denounced international trade while manufacturing shirts in Bangladesh, neck ties in China, suits in Mexico and stemware in Slovenia.
Imagine that the Clintons had given an interview to People magazine and, while Bill stepped away to change clothes, Hillary told the male interviewer that she had a room to show him — and then stuck her tongue down his throat.
Imagine if Clinton had boasted on Howard Stern’s radio show that “in the history of the world, nobody has got more hot men than I have” — and referred to those men she had seduced as her “victims.” What if she were called a sex predator on the show, and she nodded proudly?
Imagine if PolitiFact had judged 71 percent of Clinton’s statements that it checked “mostly false” or worse.
Imagine that, instead of releasing 39 years of tax returns, showing most recently that she had paid 31 percent of her income in federal income taxes, she had refused to release any returns — and leaked pages from 1995 returns indicated that she had paid no federal income taxes at all for years.
Imagine if Clinton had rampaged for a week against a former beauty queen, and even tweeted encouragement to “check out sex tape” of the woman — even though such a video did not exist.
Imagine if Clinton had said, “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
Imagine if Clinton had been so lecherous that her daughter, at age 17, made her promise not to date any boy younger than 17. And if Clinton then joked publicly that as a result “the field is getting very limited.”
Imagine if Clinton had seemed completely ignorant of nuclear strategy and NATO yet said she knew “more about ISIS than the generals.”
Imagine if the Clinton Foundation had failed to register properly, had made an illegal campaign donation and had expended resources not on saving lives from AIDS but (possibly illegally) on two giant portraits of Hillary Clinton herself.
So is there a double standard in American politics, indeed in American society, subjecting women to greater scrutiny? You decide.
 Imagine if you actually wrote a piece that mattered Kristof you would finally have done something worth while you piece of crap.
 

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Help Public School Teachers Um Excuse Me

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial

   Here is the problem but to the left since they've been running our public education system into the raw sewage putting it nicely now they need more $$$ to what mess it up even further than it already has been ruined.
  An OPED from the New York Times is endorsing more $$$ into failed public schools. Their crap piece entitled "Help Teachers Before They Get to Class" I'm like excuse me more help.
  It begins "The countries that have eclipsed the United States in educational achievement have far more effective systems for training teachers. Consider, for example, Finland’s system, which has consistently ranked among the best in the world. Decades ago, Finland moved teacher education out of teachers colleges and into universities, where students are given rigorous preparation and recruited from the top quarter of their graduating high school classes.
Teachers colleges in the United States have resisted proposals for raising entry standards along these lines, which is unfortunate given how abysmal teacher training is in this country compared with training in high-performing nations. The problem was underscored in a 2013 study by the National Council on Teacher Quality that rated only 10 percent of the 1,200 programs the study examined as adequate. Most programs had low or no standards for admissions.
Even when they offer adequate instruction, the programs fail in other ways. For example, they regularly train people in subject areas where no new teachers are needed, while ignoring areas where there is a teacher shortage, like math, science and special education. Beyond that, schools often fail to arrange for student-teaching programs in schools in high-poverty areas, which puts those schools at a disadvantage for finding new staff members.
This week, the Department of Education released rules that are meant to address these problems and help states distinguish strong teacher-training programs from weak ones. 
  Another issue is the teachers unions get involved where they don't belong in the classroom the Teachers Unions a huge left wing contributor to their bullshit causes Yes the Democrat Party.
 It goes on "Under the new rules, states are required to gather information on new teachers, including the programs that trained them, and to get feedback from both principals and teachers on how well the training programs prepared them. States must then report this information to the department and make it available to the public.
Most important, the states will rate teacher-training programs on multiple indexes, including how teachers fare on evaluations or growth in student learning, as measured through a method determined by the state. As part of this process, states are required to ensure that all teaching programs give students a strong grounding in the subject they will teach — as well as in how to teach it. States are also expected to help low-performing programs get better.
  As it is with everything it SOUNDS good but too good to be true.
 It ends "In addition to giving the states a clearer view of how well teacher-training programs are working, the new information will allow aspiring teachers to evaluate the worth of teacher training programs before they go into debt to complete them.
The new rules represent a necessary first step in broader reforms of teacher preparation. Eventually, for example, schools of education will have to become more rigorous and selective if the country is to get the caliber of teaching that it clearly needs.
  Cut their funding ACCOUNTABILITY is whats needed oh wait the left doesn't believe in that.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Boston Globe Follows Former Parent Bitch Paper NYT

Image result for boston globe logo
Editorial
  The former little bitch underling of the New York Times the Boston Globe has followed suit with the NYT by endorsing Hillary Clinton For President.
 (For the record as I do when quoting the NYT in my pieces the Globe quotes will be in blue)
 The title of their lead OPED is "Hillary Clinton for president" just another liberal trash heap.
 It begins "This election isn’t a close call. Only one candidate on the ballot Nov. 8 belongs anywhere near the White House, and it’s Hillary Clinton. The Globe enthusiastically endorses her candidacy, and urges voters to run, not walk, to their nearest polling place when early voting begins in Massachusetts on Oct. 24.
Clinton, who claimed the Democratic nomination this summer on her second try, hardly requires an introduction. She’s one of the highest-visibility political figures in America, having served as first lady when her husband was president in the 1990s, a senator from New York in the 2000s, and secretary of state under President Obama from 2009 to 2013.After Clinton’s nearly 30 years in the national spotlight, voters know first-hand all of her foibles and flaws, all her strengths and beliefs. With a high degree of certainty, Americans can know that electing Clinton means picking a president who will work tirelessly to enact sensible gun control, protect the environment, keep America safe from terrorism, reform the immigration system, and grow the economy.
 Sounds like the Globe is all hot and horny for Hillary.
 It goes on
"With an equally high degree of certainty, Americans can also be sure that Clinton will make her own job needlessly difficult, through excessive secrecy and defensiveness. As the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street executives that were leaked on Friday show, she remains as tethered to the financial industry as ever. We know what we’re signing up for here.
Whatever her peccadillos, though, the challenges facing the country right now demand a president with Clinton’s priorities and grit. Mass shootings at schools, workplaces, and nightclubs have become common; what would be a national trauma in other countries slips from the headlines after a few days in the United States. Terrorists have easy access to advanced weaponry. Clinton, who won the Democratic nomination in part by pointing out her opponent’s coziness with the gun industry, supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.Meanwhile, the threat from climate change grows, and Clinton is the only presidential candidate in 2016 with any workable ideas for how to fight it. Climate change is no longer an abstract problem, as storms grow more severe and insurance rates rise in coastal areas like Massachusetts. The next president needs to lead a discussion on carbon taxes and other strategies to cut emissions, while also managing the damage from the carbon pollution already in the atmosphere.
On economics, Clinton supports raising the minimum wage, and talks about instituting “debt-free” higher education. She has leveled with the American people that her plans will cost money, which she proposes to raise through higher taxes on the wealthy.
 Same old liberal playbook bullshit raising taxes on the rich bs.
It ends "She also knows that the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants — our neighbors, family members, and coworkers — need a reasonable shot at achieving citizenship. Keeping them in the shadows is not only unjust to them, but it’s a damper on the economy. Unleashing the economic power of immigrant communities by allowing them to emerge from the underground economy would be a powerful and overdue reform. That accomplishment eluded Obama, but could be within reach if Republicans again fall flat with Latino voters in November.


Clinton’s only respectable opponent on the ballot is former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a former Republican who is running this year as a Libertarian. Johnson, who was a successful construction executive before serving two terms in Santa Fe, brings a practical leadership background and some principled differences with Clinton.
He supports a noninterventionist foreign policy, reducing taxes, and limiting the nation’s drug prohibition laws. Unlike Clinton, he opposed the war in Iraq.
But the Libertarian ticket’s position on climate change leaves a lot to be desired: While Johnson acknowledges it is “probably” happening, he appears to believe the government shouldn’t do much of anything about the projected increase in world temperatures and sea levels. Translation: If you live near the Atlantic Ocean, Johnson may not be your candidate.
He also supports abolishing the Department of Education, which has been a powerful force to raise national education standards. And his tax plan calls for phasing out the progressive income tax. Most problematic of all, he takes a doctrinaire libertarian approach to gun control — which is to say, he opposes it.
Still, while his ideas may seem like an eclectic mix, Johnson is not a fringe candidate, and it’s a shame that he and his running mate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, have been held to such a double standard during this election. While it’s understood that Democratic and Republican candidates never actually hew to their party platform, Johnson has been held to account for every kooky Libertarian idea. But this is not your college roommate’s Libertarian Party anymore, and Johnson and Weld are bona fide potential presidents.
Alas, that is much more than can be said for the remainder of Clinton’s opponents.The Green Party and the Republican Party, unfortunately, have nominated utterly implausible candidates. Jill Stein, a Lexington doctor and longtime Massachusetts political gadfly, won the Green Party’s nomination again this year, and proceeded to give a wink-and-nod shout-out to alt-left vaccine skeptics, saying this year that people had “real concerns” about vaccines. She also opposed her own party’s call for universal broadband, on the dubious assertion that wireless signals could damage children’s brains.
Her campaign revolves around the notion that voters shouldn’t have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Okay. But that’s not a case for Stein.
Meanwhile, Republican Donald J. Trump has run a disgraceful campaign of ethnic scapegoating and personal insults. Voter anger at the political establishment has been palpable during this campaign, and that is certainly driving some to consider supporting Trump. But his race-baiting demagoguery cannot be discounted; it has been disappointing to see so many timid Republicans who should know better fall in line behind him, as if his obvious unsuitability for the presidency is no big deal. The lewd video from 2005 that surfaced on Friday, which showed Trump boasting of his sexual assaults against women, reinforces what was already obvious: The GOP nominee needs to see a psychiatrist, not a nuclear-launch code.
In an election with a candidate like Trump in the mix, it’s perhaps no surprise that so many voters tell pollsters they are voting against a candidate as much as they are voting for one.
Framing the choice that way, though, sells Clinton way too short. Even against far more impressive opponents, she’d still be a great choice. Over her career, she’s demonstrated the poise, intelligence, dedication, and preparedness to be commander in chief. Hillary Clinton is not just the only safe choice in this election — she’s also the right choice.
Boston Globe just keeps splitting hairs politically dumb assery

NYT Goes To An All New Low

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial
  Instead of focusing on the issues the New York Times as always has to comment about sleaze which proves they are not about news or reporting it. This morning is no different in their lead OPED entitled "The Sleaziness of Donald Trump" but funny nothing on the sleaze that Hillary Clinton is going after and ruining the lives of the women who her husband former President Bill Clinton had affairs with before, during and after his Presidency. The NYT is mum on that.
 The hypocrisy begins "And so we have now heard the Republican nominee for president of the United States bragging about repeated sexual assault.
Donald Trump — a man who aspires to represent the highest ideals of the nation to his fellow citizens and the world — is heard on a videotape obtained by The Washington Post talking about how he would force himself on women. He could even grab them between their legs, he boasted.
“And when you’re a star they let you do it,” he said.
In a statement released after the video became public on Friday, Mr. Trump tried to minimize the conversation as “locker room banter.” As if the problem were just his words rather than his actions.
“I apologize,” he added, “if anyone was offended.”
If? Well, maybe it’s reasonable for him to wonder. This is a man who has said many outrageous things, after all, proudly violating all conventions of civic discourse with gutter attacks on women and the disabled, immigrants and minorities. He said that Senator John McCain was not a war hero and that fat women were disgusting.
Yet, those kinds of remarks have not deterred the millions of Americans who fervently support him. And the Republican establishment has remained staunchly in his corner. So it is perhaps quite understandable that Mr. Trump might wonder whether anyone might be so sensitive as to actually be offended.But has he gone too far, at last?
Omg lol so does that mean Bill Clinton went too far as well no he didn't because he's a liberal Democrat.
The bullshit and ends continues "
Speaker Paul Ryan, you couldn’t possibly want Donald Trump as a role model for your children. Why do you diminish yourself by urging him on the country?
Senator Kelly Ayotte, you said this week in your race for re-election from New Hampshire that Mr. Trump was a role model for children. Then you said you’d misspoken but you still planned to vote for him, even though you weren’t actually endorsing him. Will you continue to tie yourself in knots like this?