Posted on 05/16/2016 6:17:34 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
The comments after the story are mostly anti-NYT. And the Politico now locks up my computer. Grrrr.
Hillary gets a free ride though.
Hildabeast “strong woman feminism” is so 70’s.
She’s & her campaign are stuck in a time warp from her hippie days.
The world has “come a long way” in the last 30-40 years
They LED (and lied) with this, soon as I read it told the wife this was a hatchet job. How was it debasing to offer a woman to wear a bathing suit at a pool party? Plus they dated after that.
The article made it sound like then taking her out to all the best places in the world was date rape.
The whole article was one big “so what” written as though normal behavior was not.
“It is now fitting and appropriate for a conservative paper or network to explore the sexual history of Hillary Clinton.”
It would be fitting for the NYT to thoroughly explore Hillary.
Is that a he or a she trans-ing? Either way, it has uber lib moron written all over it.
Let this be a lesson to all. Never, ever give an interview for a written article as it will be slanted and spun into unrecognizable mush.
Someone should line up the dates of what Trump and Clinton were doing in history. 1992, Trump was doing this and Hillary was standing by her man. 1994 Trump was with this woman and Hillary was savaging and threatening a woman Billy was involved with. 1998, Trump whatever, Hillary was creating a VRWC to distract from her philandering husband. Then move up to the Clinton foundation years and it gets even better.
The friends they did have ended up dead.
But because the Times has so exaggerated a rating with academic leftists, this testimony of the level of their deception--and the abuse of a woman's trust in their "integrity," is certainly useful in providing a lens to explore their real intent.
The fact that after 11 months of sifting everything they could find, in order to make Donald Trump look bad, they have to concoct something like this, "out of the whole cloth," tells us a great deal about our enemies.
What is coincidental, I realize, but in my Political Novel, Return Of The Gods, the New York Times reporter sent to report on the Senate campaign of the central figure, is given the assignment--against her own better judgment--of digging up dirt on the candidate, by interviewing ex-girl friends, and cherry picking for dirt in the results. (I do not claim "second sight"; but I really do understand dishonest journalism. It has been the bain of honest debate, also for a very long time.)
People never learn.........if you are going for your 15 mins of fame.....RECORD IT!! When being interviewed by any media, tape record all of it! It is an easy thing to do. Then if they misrepresent what you said, you have proof. Recording is what all conservatives should do also..........
He didn’t say it.
She didn’t say it.
Only the msm said it.
Asked what the reporters got wrong, Brewer Lane said they took her quotes and “put a negative connotation on it.”
...
They cherry picked the quotes and then added their own innuendo.
As mentioned in my first reply here, with reference to my political & psychological novel. I put in the Chapters where a young Times Reporter is ordered to write this type of piece, in reference to a campaign, where the Left is clearly losing ground to a superior Conservative, because this behavior of the "Times" is predictable. (And the psychological aspects, you discuss, reflect why they stupidly believe this sort of tactic will actually work against a strong candidate, like Donald Trump or the fictitious candidate in my novel.)
“Actually, it was very upsetting. I was not happy to read it at all,” Brewer Lane said. “Well, because The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story that I was telling came across. They promised several times that they would do it accurately. They told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that I was telling it and honestly, and it absolutely was not.”
...
Reminds me of Animal House: You screwed up. You trusted us.
Why don’t we hear more about her LUG years at Wellesley. LUG is Wellesley-speak for Lesbian Until Graduation. It’s common knowledge that she was a blatant participant in that scene.
Normal people have a difficult time really grasping the intellectual dishonesty of many in the News Media. But it has been an enormously destructive factor in the decline in the quality of public service in America.
In post 57 I was referring to Clintons time at Wellesley.
Hillary's sooooooo dated...
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.