Cain camp backs off Perry charge as new payout details emerge

Los Angeles Times ^ | 11/03/2011 | James Oliphant

[stephenjohnbanker]

Y U M

[TheOldLady]

You're so cute. I think... ahem.

You were warned!

[Old Sarge]

Preach on, my brother, for the words recorded are good.

[TheOldLady]

Y U M

You're unusually maudlin? You're ultra messy? Yesterday undid me? Yelling under mumbles -- Okay, that one is more like Darksheare -- You unleashed marbles? Yes unless mobsters? You're underneath myradar? [okay, starting to cheat now, stopping]

Just what do you mean by that, hmmmm? ;-p

[Politicalmom]

Any time, Sweetie. :)

[ejonesie22]

Well so much for either of us running for President now...

[lonestar]

Anderson outsmarted Cain and Block.

Anderson for POTUS!

[submarinerswife]

People who support certain other candidates have their panties in a twist over this, Cain supporters seem not to care

You forget another category. He's not my candidate and I don't care. I'm over it-nothing to this but Politico's B.S.

Time to move on.

[brytlea]

Good, I forgot there are actually sensible people who realize that the bottom line is this: The liberals want to destroy any Republican they think might be able to beat their guy next November. :)

[darrellmaurina]

28 posted on Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:28:09 PM by Jukeman: “Someone needs to dig up dirt on msm “hit men” and find out what their hidden secrets are. Who are the queers, lesbians and communists amongst them. The lives of those people need to be destroyed in whatever way it takes. It is way past time to get down and dirty - no holds barred.”

From my own experience in the media, nobody needs to do much digging because it is fairly open, obvious, and in plain sight in newsrooms. These people don’t hide.

Being “queer” or “lesbian” isn’t unusual in the media or anything to be ashamed of. Neither is “bedhopping” if you’re straight and an attractive woman. (You might get in trouble for that if you’re male and try it with a co-worker who accuses you of sexual harassment, however.)

Change the word “communist” to “socialist” or “leftist” and I can name think of quite a few colleagues over the years who wouldn’t have denied the label, and I can think of many more whose definition of “moderate” was so far skewed to the left that most old-school Southern Democrats would be considered right-wingers.

Some of this is because the Washington elite is far to the left of center, not just economically but also morally and religiously and culturally in general. The same is true of the political and economic leadership in the communities of most (not all) state capitals. After all, take the Ivy League culture, add in the second-tier regionally elite universities, and what do we expect that sort of education and acculturation process will produce in our lawyers, MBAs, and other young men and women who are likely to move into control of the levers of power?

But with regard to the media, it’s worse than this, and for a long list of reasons.

All the way back to the 1950s and probably way before that, the stories about Scotch in the top drawers of reporter’s desks and hard-living, hard-drinking, hard-smoking newspapermen were often true. Moral standards in the media have been an issue for a long time. Beyond that, however, newspaper reporters especially, but also radio and TV people, are **SUPPOSED** to be aggressively anti-authoriarian. We are **SUPPOSED** to be watching what government does to hold it accountable. However, things went seriously wrong in the 1960s, and actually well before that in many places, when reporters forgot that we need to be grateful to the First Amendment for the ability it gives us to go after corruption in government and poke holes in powerful people.

One reason I got away with being an identified conservative for so many years in media operations (though I lost a lot of promotion opportunities due to my views) was that people knew that regardless of my conservative politics, I didn’t care if the guy in office was a conservative or a liberal — if he said something stupid or did something crooked, I reported it, and it helped that some people would trust me on the conservative side of the fence because they knew I don’t have an anti-conservative agenda. The result was that I would get some stories others didn’t because I was trusted by people who don’t typically trust media.

The point? Our media leaders have far too often forgotten that the freedoms they have come from the Constitution and are not just critical of the government (which they should be) but critical of America and American values, which is both wrong and self-destructive.

Sharia Law and Islamofascism will not tolerate liberalism in any way, shape or form. At least the liberal media’s support of the North Vietnamese and various left-wing groups made sense; they shared many commmon values. The media’s attitude toward our current War on Terror makes no logical sense at all.

I think trying to expose or blackmail key media leaders is a waste of time. Yes, a fair number are doing reprehensible things, but in many cases they don’t see anything wrong wit their behavior. And, in fairness, a lot of the same could be said of a lot of neoconservative people in Washington who are nationalists and economic conservatives but do not share a moral consensus with the rest of the conservative movement.

[SunkenCiv]

OTOH...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2800237/posts?page=39#39
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2800342/posts?page=52#52

[stephenjohnbanker]

” You’re unusually maudlin? You’re ultra messy? Yesterday undid me? Yelling under mumbles — Okay, that one is more like Darksheare — You unleashed marbles? Yes unless mobsters? You’re underneath myradar? [okay, starting to cheat now, stopping]

Just what do you mean by that, hmmmm? “

Your mind wanders, I see.....

[stephenjohnbanker]

The author, James Oliphant, is a cockroach.

[dforest]

That piece by Steyn is funny.

And so true.

[mojitojoe]

6-25-2001, let me repeat it again, sign up date means NOTHING. It's just a date the screen name was created. Some people just cannot grasp that. They check sign up date and automatically assume it means they are A-ok. NO... NO... NO, good trolls always have some names on the back burner with early sign up dates. One MUST check past posts, all the way back. See if they post a lot every day, see what they posted when they first joined.... even then, people must realize that if someone signed up in 1998 they could have been a conservative THEN.

However this is 2011. That is 13 YEARS, things change, maybe they remarried a liberal, began to work and hang out with liberals and changed into libtards. Bottom line, past posts never lie although it can be a little tough if you want to catch the "concern trolls" but it's not terribly difficult. The mods are bad at it because they don't have the time or inclination to do it. Freepers need to stay alert and help them out or the trolls will remain.

Glad another oldie was busted today! Good riddance!

[mojitojoe]