NYT Tries To Go U.S.Constitutional



Opinion/Editorial

  Here they come in their own mind once again all of the sudden the left wing self righteous New York Times editorial board are now experts in something that they cannot properly interpret,comprehend or understand the U.S. Constitution. I know what you are thinking I am LMAO and trying not to spill my coffee from laughing so hard.
 The title of this OPED from the NYT is "Filibustering Nominees Must End" this morning.This is where it gets good starting off when the NYT tells the US senate what to do "The system for reviewing presidential appointments is broken. The Senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the naming of judges and high-ranking executive branch officials. But the process has been hijacked by cynical partisanship and cheap tricks.This is not a new problem, but it has gotten intolerably worse and is now threatening to paralyze government, as Republicans use the filibuster to try to kill off agencies they do not like. The number of unfilled judicial seats is nearing a historic high.It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators. We agree with President Obama’s call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days."
 Hello NYT are not your buddies in the Democrat party in the majority in the US Senate or not?Filibustering is part of the process now all of the sudden a change in heart Gee I wonder why?
 Oh wait here is the answer "This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly. The filibuster has sometimes been the only way to deny life terms on the federal bench to extremist or unqualified judges. But the paralysis has become so dire that we see no other solution."
 Yeah this is their idea of sticking the moistened finger outside on a windy day to see which way the political winds are blowing.No NYT just nominees who you deem unqualified or extremists which are those common sense thinking people who interpret the Constitution as the founders intended.
 Here is a good example of the NYT not understanding the Constitution "Senate Republicans then blocked the confirmation vote for Richard Cordray, a strong pro-consumer leader and the bureau’s chief of enforcement. Mr. Obama gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, which means he will be able to serve only until the end of 2013."
 Here is the problem the US Senate was not in a recess and it was reported everywhere but hey its the NYT! Once again the NYT has a hard time dealing with the FACTS!

NYT All Upset At Gingrich Victory In Palmeto State Primary Victory



Opinion/Editorial

  They are all up in arms this morning distraught and mad as hell and IM LOVING IT! Just by the headline of the lead OPED in this mornings New York Times "South Carolina’s Divisive Message" is the title.
  With a victory for the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich the common sense well informed voters last night of South Carolina said NO! to the Republican Party establishment big time.
  Now to this BS NYT political offensive it begins in true whining fashion "Since it was first held 32 years ago, the South Carolina Republican primary has been won by the party’s most electable candidate, the one backed by the Republican establishment and invariably the winner of the nomination. On Saturday, the state veered in an extreme direction, and the outcome spoke poorly for a party that allowed itself to be manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning.
  Newt Gingrich won the primary by a decisive margin of 12.5 percentage points, and there is no mystery about how he did it. Two-thirds of voters interviewed in exit polls said they made their decision on the basis of the two South Carolina debates, where Mr. Gingrich exploited racial resentment and hatred of the news media to connect with furious voters.
  He was helped by Mitt Romney’s halting answers about his tax returns and his finances, and by Rick Santorum’s tepid campaign, in which he compared himself to warm porridge. But Mr. Gingrich won this largely on his own.
 Now the NYT attack the good folks of South Carolina "He had a much better sense of the raw, destructive anger at President Obama swirling around a highly conservative and combative state, and he reflected it back to voters everywhere he went."
  Aww I'm sorry NYT editorial board you're all upset because your little northeastern RINO Republican candidate got rejected by the good people of South Carolina meaning Mitt Romney.I love it manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning HELLO you hypocrites in the lamestream media you have engaged in the lowest form of campaigning a.k.a as MEDIA BIAS! 2008 election you never called President Barack HUSSEIN Obama to task on anything friggin hypocrites.No No No NYT sorry Gingrich spoke the truth he never ever took the path that you all and the left does with the issue of race not even close you morons.Oh and by the way NYT as far as hatred of the news media when CNN's John King went after Gingrich in reference to the issue of the ex-wife what do you expect him to say HELLO dumb asses wake up.
 Once again the NYT attacks the South Carolina electorate and the Tea Party movement "South Carolina has moved sharply rightward since Mr. Obama arrived on the national scene. In 2000, 24 percent of state voters said they were “very conservative,” but that number jumped to 34 percent in 2008. Now it is up to 37 percent, according to exit polls. Two-thirds of Saturday’s voters said they supported the Tea Party, reflecting the election in 2010 of four South Carolina freshmen who are among the most extreme members of the House."
 Extreme NYT? No the Constitutional conservative Tea Party movement is about something you have no idea about its called the U.S. Constitution.
 More BS ranting "It was Mr. Gingrich who pulled the race into the gutter, where he found considerable support. He repeatedly called Mr. Obama “the greatest food-stamp president in American history,” and lectured a black questioner at Monday’s debate about the amount of federal handouts to blacks, suggesting their work ethic was questionable."
 Sorry NYT once again not just the truth but the facts you cannot comprehend under Obama your buddy Government reliance meaning people relying upon the government for assistance has shot through the roof with programs such as food stamps.
 This is vicious hatred for the people of South Carolina by the NYT "Is that really what Republicans across the country want from their nominee, or is South Carolina, with its history of acute racial tension and contrarianism, simply sending a singular, extreme message?"
 So much for the tolerance and diversity that the left and especially the NYT loves to preach about PRACTICE IT NYT HYPOCRITES AGAIN!
 The oped ends with an Official New York Times message to the RINO Republican Establishment a.k.a marching orders "It is still hard to imagine a path to the nomination for a divisive candidate like Mr. Gingrich, let alone one to the White House. If he continues along this muddy road, there is still time for Republicans in upcoming states to repudiate him, and demonstrate that South Carolina has become an aberration rather than a bellwether."
 And the sad the thing is is that they will listen and try to adhere to it.