Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week, a Minnesotan’s view on Franken and Keillor, we get handsy with our old pal David Limbaugh (would he vote for Roy Moore — tune it to find out), and a chat with an actual southerner about the south (that’s Weekly Standard writer Barton Swaim). Also, a bit about Flynn, and some turkey and tax talk.
Music from this week’s episode: Stars Fell On Alabama by Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
DonorsTrust
DonorsTrust is the community foundation for the liberty movement. Any donor-advised fund will simplify your giving and offer great tax benefits. Only DonorsTrust shares your principles. Visit donorstrust.org/ricochet to get your free prospectus.
Because no one asked her and she is not politically motivated.
The WaPo found her because they have resources (Bezos $$) available to them that local AL papers do not. And no, the WaPo did not pay her.
M point is that WaPo is a large, well-funded outfit, so if they were going to do a hit job, they would make it as plausible as they could.
How do we know?
How can you say she isn’t politically motivated when her allegations are timed to do maximum damage?
What is your definition of “hit job”? Is it a hit job if they are reporting facts, but timed to do the most possible damage to the candidate they don’t like? Or are you someone who believes they must be lying? When you say, “they would make it as plausible as they could,” it implies you think there are lies involved. Are you accusing the WaPo? Are you accusing specific women whom they interviewed? Exactly who is lying? What proof do you have? Why do you need the lying on top of the obvious timing?
When did the WaPo interview her? Did she choose the timing? Or did they? I don’t think she had much control over the timing. On the other hand, the WaPo did, and obviously, they used that. They should have held their shot for about another week or two, according to all indications, but they were the ones who chose the timing.
The WaPo sought her out (because there’s an election going on), not the other way around. That’s how we know.
Yes.
Note, I’m not necessarily referring to this specific report. I have no idea if the WaPo knew about this story months ago and sat on it, or if they got it and reported it the same week.
If they got it last summer and sat on it, then it’s a hit job. Best example I can come up with is the George W. Bush drunk driving story, which as far as I know was purposely held back until the weekend before the 2000 election when it would do the most damage due to the limited time available to respond.
Nah, there’s no “one time” emergency anymore. They no longer exist on either side. Now it seems to be, “I’m going to hold my nose and support this no good so-and-so from our side because it’s the practical course of action, and I’ll worry about regret and self-recrimination later.”
I don’t have any proof-I don’t live in Alabama, and I don’t know any of the people involved. I do know that the Proggies mean to win this long war by any means necessary, and that they have no scruples about lying or shading the truth when it suits them. I think the timing and the fact that the woman waited for forty years to say any thing are pretty darned suspicious. I find it fascinating that some out of town reporters found out things that local Alabama reporters didn’t.
I don’t know if they are lying. In light of the GWB National Guard hoax, the Rolling Stone fake frat rape case, and the Duke lacrosse case, I think it might be possible, and maybe even likely that Prog reporters would make things up.
Respectfully disagree. To appreciate Guernica, you have to be told what it represents. And even when you are told, your fascination with the work is based on your efforts to relate the figures in the painting to what you interpret they are meant to represent. Goya, for example, in his masterpiece The Shootings of May Third, managed to convey the same sense of chaos and horror using representational art:
Great podcast!
But Guernica is representational! You can clearly see what is depicted: humans, cattle, a horse — they’re represented intelligibly enough so we recognize them, but distorted. Beats having to do the hard work….and unless one knows what the picture is about, you can’t figure it our on your own.
Picasso may have been competent enough, but when you look at his early work and compare it with the masters of those times (or just before his times), he’s no genius. He was capable, but that’s all. He wasn’t going to go anywhere at his level. So he very shrewdly just went for novelty and shock value.
Now known as “the only thing contemporary art has left.”