Posted on 06/12/2016 7:18:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Years ago Pat was saying how Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party.
I once got to publicly point that out (consequences of leaving Viet Nam) to someone who had proudly boasted of being in the anti-war movement and “defeating Nixon.” You should have seen the look on her face when I asked her how she felt about being partly responsible for the deaths of over two million Cambodians.
Compared to the Clinton corruption, yup!
The “Cookie Monster” is right. An honest liberal.
“The difference is that no equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein will go after the Hillary story.”
Every editor at the NYT would spike the story no matter if it was written by F. Lee Bailey!
"The White House is like a subway: You have to put in coins to open the gates"—Johnny Chung, a Taiwanese-born businessman and major Democratic donor in the 1990s.
You can add Brian Ross to the honesty list, at least on the how Clinton donor got on sensitive intelligence board story. AGC had it on the front page for at least two whole days, too. Maybe there are internal loyalty wars going on in the media and agencies.
Pat Cadell is what a democrat was when they were patroits. Pat Cadell's numbers are few, very few. People like Pat Cadell are despised by the present leadership of the Demonic-Rat party. Cadell speaks truth in the face of falsehood. He is very dangerous to them.
I like Pat Cadell.
Bingo. It was leftist media hysterics and double standards. Bugging political opponents was a time-honored tradition going back decades, but only when Nixon did it did the media lose their $hit. What about FDR, JFK, LBJ ? *crickets*
He has always been that way. The way he laid into Gore in 2000 was priceless.
Finally we hear the Truth we all knew!
“by any means necessary” means exactly what it says.
Or perhaps in choosing not to identify them as “the press.” There are good philosophical reasons for believing the U.S. has not had a genuine press in many years.
Watergate was NOTHING compared to the Clintons SELLING STAT SECRETS for “donations” to the Clinton Crime Family Slush Fund!!
Hillary Clinton, after breaking the law by sending top secret information over a personal server that was against the rules to be using in the first place as the Secretary of State, instead of apologizing to the American people or stepping down, has decided to steam roll ahead and pursue the highest office in the land. Caddell also criticized Clinton over using the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit charity to accept donations from foreign governments, in an effort to allegedly gain favors from the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "They were selling out the national interests of the United States directly to adversaries and others for money."
Or perhaps in choosing not to identify them as “the press.” There are good philosophical reasons for believing the U.S. has not had a genuine press in many years.Today’s MSM, to the danger of this country and its future, is making a good case for not having the Freedom of the Press. - Chgogal
Our problem is not freedom of the press - it is the lack of free and independent presses. The US had that up to the middle of the Nineteenth Century; Samuel Morse demonstrated the Baltimore-Washington telegraph line in 1844, and in 1848 the New York Associated Press - later simply the Associated Press - was founded. The very name “associated” press tells you that “the press” has become singular, united.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 NationsTheodore Roosevelt famously said, “It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belong to the man who is actually in the arena . . .” You would not expect critics to agree wholeheartedly with that assessment, tho. And in fact, the critics do not. Who are the critics? Critics see only the bad. Who sees only the bad? People who make their living reporting bad news. Understand, bad news sells. It actually does. Bad news interests the public - which is quite a different thing from being “in the public interest.”It is objective to say that bad news sells, because it does. But that does not make a focus on bad news “objective.” A whole city could be built, and yet you would never know it directly, if the only information source was bad news, and you took that bad news at face value. In reality, of course, you would know the city existed from advertisements - and you would know it from the reporting of the houses that burned down, which would first have to exist before that could even happen. But certainly, bad news is never the whole story - except in the newspapers. And the fact that the Associated Press newswire represents a virtual meeting of all those journalists merely sharpens their focus on the bad news, helping elevate negativity into the heights of cynicism. Thus, “the conversation” results in the “conspiracy against the public” which we know as “liberalism."
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.