Friday, October 28, 2016

Capitalism and Corvettes. The Man At Least Fights! Stella in Toronto. Guilt By Association?

WickiLeaks tape:



Here is the trailer:

Hillary, Obama, Warren and Bernie - God Help us!

Finally:  Guilt by association - you decide:

Displaying IMG_0054.JPG
Stella in Toronto at wedding.

A simple explanation that connects Capitalism to a Corvette.  After you read, think Pocahontas and Bernie. (See 1 below.)
Hillary's forgotten career.  She will not be forgotten now. (See 2 below.)

At least the man fights.  (See 2a below.)
Hillary is making another interesting campaign speech.

She mocked and asked Comey to be transparent and get everything out before the people.

Interesting and what a hypocrite. Her own efforts to delay and destroy evidence is of her own making.

Second, she attacked Trump for using the re-opening event to spread rumors and play the part of a fearmonger etc.  When Comey let her off the hook Hillary praised Comey.

Then she switched to the ' I am for you, I stay awake at night thinking of you, when they go low we go high and I am  not backing down because of  Right Wing efforts. Then she ended by telling the audience Trumps wants all voters to stay home as part of his scorched earth campaign.

I turned her off because I could not listen any more to her drivel.  So sad. UGH!'
Since we have a pant lady running for president who wishes to occupy the same office her husband used as a play pen and her "second daughter's" husband has been involved with texting trash to a 15 year old and the other major candidate has also been accused of not being respectful of women I was feeling left out of our three ring presidential circus.

So here are some comments of others this conservative found amusing regarding sex:

"I believe that sex is a beautiful thing between two people. Between five, it's fantastic."   -  Woody Allen

"If there is reincarnation, I'd like to come back as Pamela Anderson's fingertips."  - Woody Allen

"There are a number of mechanical devices that increase sexual arousal,
particularly in women. Chief amongst these is the Mercedes-Benz 380L convertible." 
- PJ O'Rourke

"What's the three words you never want to hear while making love?
Honey, I'm home." - Ken Hammond.

"The big difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money costs less." - Brendan Francis

"An intellectual is someone who has found something more interesting than sex."   - Edgar Wallace
       "My wife is a sex object. Every time I ask for sex, she objects."  - Les Dawson

"A nymphomaniac is a woman as obsessed with sex as the average man."- Mignon McLaughlin
1 )  A guy looked at my Corvette the other day and said I wonder how many people could have been fed for the money that sports car cost.  I replied I am not sure,  it fed a lot of families in Bowling Green, Kentucky who built it, it fed the people who make the tires, it fed the people who made the components that went  into it, it fed the people in the copper mine who mined the copper for the wires, it fed people in Decatur IL. at Caterpillar who make the trucks that haul the copper ore. It fed the trucking people who hauled it from the plant  to the dealer and fed the people working at the dealership and their families.  BUT,... I have to admit, I guess I really don't know how many people it  fed.  That is the difference between capitalism and welfare mentality. When you buy something you put money in people's pockets and give them dignity for their skills.  When you give someone something for nothing you rob them of their dignity and self-worth.
Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value.  Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for.
I've decided I can't be politically correct anymore. I never was actually.

Hillary Clinton’s Forgotten Career: Corporate Lawyer

For 15 years she defended big companies for the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, a chapter all but excised from her official story

Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, in Little Rock, Ark., in September 1991.
Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, in Little Rock, Ark., in September 1991. PHOTO: DANNY JOHNSTON/ASSOCIATED PRESS
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—One of Hillary Clinton’s first assignments as a corporate lawyer landed her far from her roots. She helped overturn a ballot measure that increased electric rates for businesses and lowered them for the poor.
“Instead of defending poor people and righting wrongs, we found ourselves squarely on the side of corporate greed against the little people,” her colleague, Webb Hubbell, later wrote.
The future presidential contender worked for 15 years as a corporate litigator at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas’s capital, longer than any other position in or out of government. Her portrait still hangs in the firm’s downtown offices.
Arkansas first lady Hillary Clinton in 1985 before one of her husband’s inaugural balls.
Arkansas first lady Hillary Clinton in 1985 before one of her husband’s inaugural balls.PHOTO: A. LYNN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Yet that chapter in her life has been all but excised from the official Hillary Clinton story. She hardly ever mentions it on the campaign trail. Her husband skipped past it when telling of her life story at the Democratic National Convention. Until August, it wasn’t even mentioned on her campaign’s official biography.
It illustrates a pattern apparent through Mrs. Clinton’s career and into this year’s presidential campaign: She emphasizes different roles for different audiences. During her time in Arkansas, she was an advocate for children and families, and a successful lawyer at a white-shoe, mostly male law firm, representing the state’s biggest corporations.
This characteristic leads many supporters to predict she would build governing coalitions if she becomes president. Opponents, including some on the left of her own party, conclude it means she lacks core convictions.
The duality was on display in transcripts of paid speeches Mrs. Clinton gave to Wall Street firms before she entered the presidential race. As a candidate, she has emphasized the need for tough regulation of Wall Street. In those addresses, she pointed to the industry’s contributions.
“More thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we don’t kill or maim what works,” she said in one speech underwritten by Goldman Sachs GroupInc., according to a transcript that was stolen from her campaign chairman’s email account.
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon pointed to her advocacy work during her Rose years. “From the day she left law school, Hillary Clinton has never stopped being an advocate for children and families,” he said. “This period was among her most active years as Arkansas’ First Lady, when she introduced a new early childhood education program and expanded health access to rural parts of the state.”
Mrs. Clinton’s years at the firm included some controversy. For one, the roots of the Whitewater affair reach back to her years at Rose when her husband was serving as Arkansas governor. The firm and Mrs. Clinton represented a failed savings-and-loan association run by James McDougal, the Clintons’ partner in the Whitewater real-estate investment, in a matter before state regulators. Whitewater dogged the Clintons throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency, though neither of them was ever charged.

0:00 / 0:00

For Hillary Clinton, 1993 was one of the most brutal years of her political career. Marked by scandal, harsh media coverage and the defeat of her health-care plan, the year began her transformation into the tough, cautious candidate she is today. Video: Adya Beasley/The Wall Street Journal, Photo: James Colburn/Globe Photos/Zuma Press
When her husband ran for president in 1992, her work at Rose sparked questions about whether she had benefited from state business handled by her firm. Mrs. Clinton denied that it had. “For goodness' sake, you can’t be a lawyer if you don’t represent banks,” she said at the time.
Two of her best friends at the firm followed the Clintons to Washington. One of them, Mr. Hubbell, eventually went to prison after it was discovered he had stolen from the firm. They haven’t spoken since. “She doesn’t talk to me,” Mr. Hubbell said in a recent interview. The other friend, partner Vincent Foster,committed suicide.
Mrs. Clinton, known then as Hillary Rodham, joined the Rose Law Firm in 1977. She had followed Mr. Clinton to Arkansas and was teaching at the University of Arkansas law school when he was elected attorney general and planned a move to Little Rock. She had worked with Mr. Foster on a project, and he helped recruit her to the firm, which was founded in 1820 and bills itself as the oldest law firm west of the Mississippi River.
At the law school, she had run a legal-aid clinic for the poor. Many of the Rose firm’s clients were big companies, including three of the state’s largest: Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,Tyson Foods Inc. and Stephens, Inc., a brokerage firm.
In one way, the Rose years reinforce a theme of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign—that she is a pioneer for women. She was the firm’s first female associate, and two years later, its first female partner.
Although many partners welcomed her to the firm, some initially worried how they would introduce her to clients and what would happen if she became pregnant, Mr. Hubbell recalled.
When she did have a child, she has said, some partners were surprised that she expected to be paid during her maternity leave.
Some people who worked with her said her casual dress and look were out of step with Southern women of that era. “Her appearance was much more stodgy and old maid-ish,” said Joe Giroir, one of her partners from that era. “I don’t think she ever had a real feel of Arkansas.”
Mr. Giroir said there was just one woman in his law school class, and for years he had “misgivings about female attorneys because I felt like their family obligations were going to interfere” with their work. He said he changed his mind after seeing a female lawyer in Houston do a good job with a case.
Inside the firm, lawyers were split over Mrs. Clinton’s value as a partner, according to Mr. Hubbell and others.
Mrs. Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, applauded in October 1991 as her husband announced his intention to run for president.
Mrs. Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, applauded in October 1991 as her husband announced his intention to run for president. PHOTO: WESLEY HITT/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Mrs. Clinton recruited Amy Lee Stewart to the firm and mentored her. “Whenever I needed anything, wanted to ask a question, needed help with the right angle on a brief, I’d say, ‘Do you have a few minutes?’ ” recalls Ms. Stewart. “She’d say, ‘Come in. Let’s have a cup of tea and cookies.’ ”
Other colleagues resented Mrs. Clinton’s outside interests and how they limited her billable hours. In addition to time away campaigning for her husband, who was on the ballot every two years, she served as chairwoman of both the Legal Services Corp. and the Children’s Defense Fund and led efforts to revamp Arkansas’s education system.
“You can say that, well, perhaps from one perspective she wasn’t as productive as other partners were,” says Jerry Jones, a Rose colleague. “But from another perspective, what a great role model. She is able to balance all of these things and be successful at them.”

At Rose, her share of the profits was tied to the business she generated, so her time on outside civic and political activities meant she earned less than other partners. She supplemented her income by serving on corporate boards including Wal-Mart and TCBY Enterprises, the yogurt franchise, both Rose clients.As first lady in 1996, Mrs. Clinton gave a deposition as part of a Whitewater inquiry in which she talked about how her attentions were divided in the mid-1980s. “I was engaged in a lot of pro-bono public activities,” she said. “I spent much of 1982 campaigning nearly full-time for my husband. I spent much of 1983 heading up the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, so that my time was not solely devoted to law practice by any means.”
She wrote in her 2003 memoir, “Living History,” that she “worried that because politics is an inherently unstable profession, we needed to build up a nest egg.”
By 1991, she was earning just over $100,000 from the firm, plus another $60,700 from director’s fees, according to news reports at the time. As governor, Mr. Clinton earned $35,000 that year.
In her 2003 book, Mrs. Clinton writes only briefly about her work at Rose. She highlights a couple of cases, including her first jury trial, where she defended a canning company sued by a man who found the rear end of a rat in his pork and beans. He claimed he couldn’t kiss his fiancĂ©e because every time he thought about the situation he would spit.
Mrs. Clinton argued the man hadn’t suffered any real damages and because the rodent part had been sterilized it would be considered edible in parts of the world. She said the plaintiff won “only nominal damages.” Mrs. Clinton didn’t identify the name of the man or the company involved.

The bulk of her cases involved defending large corporations, a Wall Street Journal review of court records suggests. She represented a supplier of Jenn-Air products in a contract dispute between a distributor and supplier. She represented the cosmetics maker MaybellineCo. seeking to stop a competitor from advertising its mascara as “clean lash” because, Maybelline contended, it wasn’t actually waterproof.After that, she rarely appeared in trial. She took on some family-law cases, such as a father fighting for custody of his 6-year-old daughter, and a family that wanted to adopt their foster child, which ran counter to the rules then in place.
She defended a company accused of wrongfully terminating an agreement to distribute natural-food products. She represented First Nationwide Bank when it argued that Nationwide Savings and Loan was violating its trademark by using the term “Nationwide Savings.” And when a former employee of the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Arkansas argued he had been wrongly denied disability benefits, she represented the company.
Another partner, Herbert Rule, remembers a case in which a wealthy timber owner left the bulk of his $17 million estate to Arkansas College. When the man died at age 94, his recently hired female caregiver produced another will that left most of the money to her. The firm sued on behalf of the college.
“At a meeting with the lawyers representing the caregiver, Hillary spoke up after 30 minutes in a loud voice, pointing to the caregiver and said, ‘Everyone knows you told him what to do, and he did it. You told him to change his will, and he did,’ ” Mr. Rule recalled. A long silence and “some muttering” by the caregiver followed, he said. About two weeks later, the case settled, he said, with the bulk of the money going to the college.
Webb Hubbell, left, with Bill Clinton in Little Rock in 1986, was one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest friends at the Rose Law Firm.
Webb Hubbell, left, with Bill Clinton in Little Rock in 1986, was one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest friends at the Rose Law Firm. PHOTO: JOHN SYKES/LIAISON/GETTY IMAGES
“This was a remarkable example of Hillary’s strategic insight and chutzpah, two of her remarkable traits,” he said.
The electricity-rate case was already under way when she joined the firm in 1977. In November 1976, the activist group Acorn, which is now largely defunct, had succeeded in getting onto the ballot an initiative, dubbed LifeLine, to lower electricity rates for low-income users and increase them for businesses. It passed.
The Rose team’s argument was that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking, a line of reasoning Mr. Hubbell credits in part to Mrs. Clinton.
“We hated seeing her on the other side of the table,” says Wade Rathke, founder of Acorn, who was friends with her husband at the time. “We had never been confronted with the reality of her as a corporate lawyer. But there she was and there we were. We didn’t win this one.”+

2a) Trump Fights

The last few days have seen continuing discussion of Donald Trump’s being seduced into responding to his leftist opposition’s personal slams and slurs against him -- which, incidentally, are not confined to alleged sexual indiscretions. A good many people, including Republican Party elites and Trump’s own campaign advisers, have long and consistently suggested that he should not answer such slurs, and that doing so is but a sign of his own self-absorbed, narcissistic ego. They maintain that he should, instead, stick to the issues and remain “on message” -- because hey, the issues are the things that are causing such extensive destruction to the country.
It is not an unreasonable point -- particularly during an election campaign whose winner will succeed a man who is the most self-absorbed president in living memory; a good many people have had enough of that. But in an on-air call to Rush Limbaugh this week, Trump responded this way to Rush’s asking him about the matter: 
...when people say things that are fabrication -- you know, there were fabricated stories made up, these were fabrications. You know what I'm talking about.Out of nowhere. And this was just like, if you remember, where they said, you know, with the rallies where they hired thugs to go into my rallies, well, I think they hired other people to do other things. 
I would rather, Rush, fight it, even though most people say you shouldn't do that. But if you fight it, at least you're telling the truth. At least the word is out that, you know, you're innocent of these charges or stating you're innocent.  But other people say stay on jobs, stay on Obamacare and repealing and replacing it, et cetera. So I guess it's two theories. I would rather fight it, but everyone says you shouldn't do that, just go along.
So Trump understands explicitly that there is virtue in fighting back, and implicitly that people are longing for someone who will do so -- someone like him -- even though they may not quite pinpoint it that way. I think he is onto something serious with that one, and I will tell you why.

Most people understand that one of the Republican establishment’s most pervasive problems with its own constituency is its perceived unwillingness to fight back against relentless attacks from the progressive left and its Democratic Party cohorts -- consider, for example, those who accused George W. Bush of fabricating the cause for the Iraq War. What that establishment does not seem to understand, though, is the extent to which people see these attacks on both the officials they elected and their policies as comprising attacks on the people themselves.
Bush refused to respond to political attacks against him during the Iraq War, and to attacks on its rationale. When Karl Rove advised him to refrain from responding to such attacks so as not to “relitigate the past,” Bush pursued his own policies diligently but remained quiet in the face of these political attacks -- which, as a result, grew in both intensity and hostility.

In refusing to respond to the attacks against him, Bush was also failing to see that the attacks were not only against him. They were also against the American military that was fighting a foreign war under his command and against those large numbers of the American people who supported both the American military and Bush himself in that effort. Instead, he allowed all those citizens of this country who supported him in undertaking removal of a threat, and its soldiers who labored in harm’s way, to twist in the wind as the rhetorical targets they, too, thereby became. Even in his storied and celebrated reverence for the military he commanded, Bush failed to see the damage he was inflicting upon them in such a breach.

Bush’s response to the Iraq War slanders is but one example of a situation Republican establishment elites have consistently failed to recognize. They are representatives -- either elected themselves, or appointed by those who are elected. They are hence functionaries in our constitutional republic -- but so are those who elected them. This country’s government is not, after all, a mere show put on for an audience. Likewise, elections are not box offices where viewers buy tickets by casting votes. American voters are, instead, citizen-participants. A significant number of these participants have come to see Donald Trump as the only presidential candidate who understands and accepts the real-world-participation nature of national-level American politics, and who might reasonably be expected to represent them rather than merely to use them.

So Trump is not responding to attacks by ignoring them in favor of continuing a theatrical script other people, people on the professional production crew, hand him. He is fighting back, and against specifics. And contrary to the standard political approach, he is not pretending to fight for his supporters. Instead, and as his supporters understand, he is fighting with them -- because they have all been, and continue to be, targets. The customary issues are not the only things that are causing such extensive damage to this country. The battle plan itself is destructive -- because the people themselves are its target. The increasing, and increasingly energized, numbers of Trump’s supporters understand this, both implicitly and explicitly. And they are, consciously or not, adopting Abraham Lincoln’s memorable formulation in response to criticism for placing Ulysses S. Grant in charge of all Union forces during the Civil War: “I can’t spare this man.  He fights.

No comments: