Posted on 05/05/2013 4:18:56 PM PDT by mandaladon
Hey Bill! You don’t even have a Latino last name! You lost all credibility when you betrayed Hillary and Bill to Obama in 2008. They were your friends and you cut then off! Hill and Bill will get their revenge (they always do). You do not even live by the Liberal Code—Loyalty is something you never had or forgot. I heard Hill wanted you for VP in 2008-—When Obama falls, I hope he pulls you down with him, When this is over you will not be able to get a job as conductor of your railroad.
They sure don't like Hispanics who don't know their place, do they?
They always do this. Malign their opponents with the exact thing they are guilty of. I get the takers of society going along with their charade, but I don't get the so called nice liberals that can't see them for what they are. They must be dumber than a box of rocks.
And he’s as corrupt as the day is long.
This comment will go over real well in the Florida Cuban community.
Here we go yet again - another Democrat saying if people of a certain ethnicity or race don’t fall in line with a certain way of thinking, they aren’t truly members of that race - no room for independence of thought - all must act and think a certain way. Now that is true racism.
yup
leftists are racist to the core
No doubt, yet it was awfully hard to reconcile supporting a woman his wife knew nothing about. I was on board with Herman and that bit just was too much.
You can’t begin to know the sheer disdain I hold for the dems and their treatment of blacks. They are a sick and evil lot and I pray that I see them exposed fully in my lifetime.
Not hard to reconcile at all. He’s a good man who helped a former employee.
She claimed lots of things about Herman, yet we never saw the actual transcripts and what went on between them. That has me suspicious that if we saw them it would become very clear.
If there was smoke, we’d have seen them front and centre.
Ok, they riddle me this. Why did he drop out? Why didn’t his wife go to bat for him?
Look, I still have tremendous respect and admiration for Herman, but that fact was disturbing and obviously couldn’t be explained away.
You and I might appreciate that he took actions to help another, but I’m guessing his wife didn’t much appreciate being left in the dark on that choice.
There was an interesting facet of the secret war within WWII. You presumably know that the time and location of the D-Day invasion of Normandy was an extremely well-guarded secret. The operation to guard that secret with disinformation was called “Operation Bodyguard.” The British and Americans knew that the most obvious attack point was directly across the Channel to the port of Calais, and they were eager that the Germans should believe that Calais was indeed their target. They went to the extent of creating a fictitious massive army, called the "First United States Army Group,” supposedly headed by General George Patton (who in fact was sidelined in disgrace after having slapped some shell-shocked soldiers), synthesizing the communications traffic that the Germans would be unsurprised to detect if such a group actually existed.So much is pretty well known. But what I found fascinating was the fact that the ruse was sustained long after the actual D-Day landings! Even as the invasion in Normandy was solidifying its foothold, the “massive” First United States Army Group was still supposedly the main attacking force, and it was bound for Calais. And the Normandy landing was, supposedly, a mere diversion. Hard as it seems to believe, there was never a moment when the Germans said, “Ach! We have been fooled by this “First United States Army Group” charade, the American Army never had that many troops anywhere! If for no other reason than that “the Germans” was actually just Hitler. Having bought the con, Hitler had put the defensive force concentration near Calais, Hitler had forbidden it to move at all without his specific authorization, and Hitler had refused that authorization at the critical time. And Hitler was not a man to say, “Oops!” Or to suffer fools - still less, wise men pointing out that he had done something foolish - gladly.
But the point of all that is just to say that there will never be a moment when, in a blinding flash, everyone will discard all illusions about the conspiracy against the public of which the Democratic Party is a central, but not the only, part. Because the other crucial piece of that conspiracy is “wire service journalism.”
Understand, I have never been big on conspiracy theories. But still less would you associate Adam Smith with conspiracy theories; he was about figuring out what human behavior follows naturally from what situations. And if there is one thing Smith is famous for and which “liberals” are enthusiastic over, it is his statement about monopoly:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends . . . in some contrivance to raise prices."But there is something left out of that quote. The full quote is,People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Notice if you will, dear reader, that there is at least one “trade” which is uniquely suited to cause its practitioners to have a “conversation” - journalism. Journalists’ job is say things, and those things are in the public domain for everyone - including other journalists - to read. There is even an official organization for sharing stories among journalists - the Associated Press. The AP newswire represents a virtual meeting of all major American journalism outlets - one that has been in continual operation since the middle of the Nineteenth Century.If people of the same trade “seldom” meet without conspiring against the public, what are we to think of a meeting of all members of the same trade having a continuous meeting which has been going on for well over a century and a half? It is impossible, after all that time, that they should fail to collude to benefit themselves at the expense of the public. But in what sense should we look at the possibility of their conspiring against us? That is a simple question, which was answered in the first 25 years of the existence of the AP. What does it mean, when a single organization transmits propaganda to the entire nation?When that question was asked in the Nineteenth Century, it was possible to argue that “the AP is an organization of many members, and those individual newspapers are famous for not agreeing about much of anything - so the AP itself is objective.” But is it not the bitterest of jokes now, to assert that newspapers all have different points of view? If you have seen one newspaper now, you have seen them all. All come from the POV that what is important is journalism - that the critic and not the man in the arena is who counts. Journalism now exists to exalt the critic, and denigrate anyone who tries to earn credit for actually doing things which we-the-people need done. In conspiring against those who satisfy the public's needs - for food, water, shelter, clothing, and so forth - the “people of the same trade” of journalism conspire against the public.
“Why did he drop out?”
He was receiving death threats.
“Why didn’t his wife go to bat for him?”
His wife did go to bat for him.
“that fact”
What fact? She was a former employee. He’d helped numerous former employees, not just her.
“obviously couldn’t be explained away.”
Yes, there’s a sensible answer to it. He helped her because she was a former employee. That’s all there was to it. .
“I’m guessing his wife didn’t much appreciate being left in the dark on that choice.”
His wife actually spoke up on it and said that she stood by Herman and she understood what he was trying to do.
Herman only dropped out after that when he was getting death threats directed at his immediate and extended family, and he decided that it wasn’t worth putting his family in the firing line. He mentioned some of his family had been assaulted etc.
Well thanks for the recap! Filling in where I had forgotten.
Sorry, far more interested in the here and now, Benghazi, Boston, Amnesty....
And not in defending a good man. I see.
Your words, not mine.
I don’t much appreciate the assumption you have there.
I agreed that your information was important and probably much I had forgotten, for that I say thank you.
It is now May 7, 2013 and Herman is not on the stage regarding Benghazi, Syria, Boston et al
So you can leave the snark please.
Interesting. Now you double down by saying that Herman hasn’t said anything. What makes you think that?
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.