The Rest Of the Story

By Paul Harvey

THIS IS AN EYE-OPENER!

 

 

Conveniently Forgotten Facts.

 

Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that

a fellow black panther named Alex Rackley needed to die.

Rackley was suspected of disloyalty. Rackley was first

tied to a chair.

 

Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours

by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him.

 

When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther

member, Warren Kimbro took Rackley outside and put

a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later found

floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven,

Connecticut.

 

Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what

happened to these Black Panthers?

 

In 1977 (only eight years later), only one of the

killers was still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro,

managed to get a scholarship to Harvard and

became good friends with none other than Al Gore.

He later became an assistant dean at an Eastern

Connecticut State College.

 

Isn't that something? As a '60s radical you can

pump a bullet into someone's head and a few years

later, in the same state, you can become an

assistant college dean!

 

Only in America!

 

Erica Huggins was the woman who served the

Panthers by boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture.

Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a

California School Board.

How in the world do you think these killers got off so

easily? Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts

of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers.

These two people actually went so far as to shut down

Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the

accused Black Panthers during their trial.

 

One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee.

Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a

college dean. He isn't a member of a California School

Board. He is now head of the United States Justice

Department's Civil Rights Division, appointed by none

other than Bill Clinton.

 

O.K., so who was the other Panther defender?

 

Is this other notable Panther defender now a school

board member? Is this other Panther apologist now

an assistant college dean? No, neither!

The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical

law student at Yale University at the time. She is

now known as The "smartest woman in the world."

She is none other than the Democratic senator from

the State of New York---- our former First Lady, the

incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton!

 

And now, as Paul Harvey said; "You know the rest

of the story".

 

Remember this story when Hillary runs for Presidency

of our great nation!

Not True

 

Snope

dont you love how republicans come up with things like this. ive seen this story float around at least 4 times now.

dont you love how republicans come up with things like this. ive seen this story float around at least 4 times now.

Way to assume that it was a Republican that started that. No need for some evidence or anything. The only enemies Hilary has are Republicans, I guess, and only they can stoop so low as to create stuff like this. Yeah.

Way to assume that it was a Republican that started that. No need for some evidence or anything. The only enemies Hilary has are Republicans, I guess, and only they can stoop so low as to create stuff like this. Yeah.

 

Its sad though really, if it was the other way around the republicans on this board would be saying "Only democrats would stoop this low" I really fail to see how someones political party has anything to do with how pathetic a certain individual is.

Its sad though really, if it was the other way around the republicans on this board would be saying "Only democrats would stoop this low" I really fail to see how someones political party has anything to do with how pathetic a certain individual is.

You are right, if it were reversed, someone would claim that the dems were behind it. And that would immediately be followed by a flood of comments from Balta, Rex and LCR similar to the one I posted. But that someone would not have been me.

I'm glad someone debunked this already.

Also: it's Hillary.

Edited February 19, 200719 yr by Gregory Pratt

I'm glad someone debunked this already.

Also: it's Hillary.

So am I. She does plenty on her own to merit "negative" attention without this garbage.

Its funny, because of the fact that both parties seemed to migrate away from the center in the last decade or so, I think we'll have Prez candidates this year finally moving back towards the middle. But that doesn't mean its going to be congenial - just the opposite, in fact. It certainly appears were going to see the nastiest fight yet, both in each party internally and in the national. In the national particularly, I think it will be an ugly brawl to scratch out the votes in the middle.

 

It may just come down to who has the fewest skeletons and fewest unexplainable votes on Iraq. Which I think is where Obama is pointing himself - no need to take specific stands on the issues, just stay out of trouble, be positive and rely on the fact that he can say anything he wants about his Iraq stand.

Who exactly is migrating to the center? McCain and Guiliani are falling all over themselves to say that they would only appoint "strict constitutionalist" judges and McCain reversed his long time position today and says he supports overturning Roe v Wade.

 

The only two top tier candidates playing to the center right now are Hillary and Obama. Obama because he's speaking merely in generalities and Hillary, especially over the Iraq issue - but for her being in the center just means playing both sides. Every top tier candidate is finding away to shift to the edge of his or her ideological side already and its a year before the first primary.

Who exactly is migrating to the center? McCain and Guiliani are falling all over themselves to say that they would only appoint "strict constitutionalist" judges and McCain reversed his long time position today and says he supports overturning Roe v Wade.

 

The only two top tier candidates playing to the center right now are Hillary and Obama. Obama because he's speaking merely in generalities and Hillary, especially over the Iraq issue - but for her being in the center just means playing both sides. Every top tier candidate is finding away to shift to the edge of his or her ideological side already and its a year before the first primary.

Primary time of course means playing to the heart of the party, so its all relative. But I think the "heart of the party" is done shifting away from the other party so dramatically now, and may even be swinging back to the middle. The national election is where I was saying you will see the bigger run to the middle, though, even more so than previous elections.

 

As for specific candidates, let's look at the 4 Dem candidates who have a shot. Obama, Hillary and Richardson are all pretty centrist, by Dem standards. The only one who seems to be playing to the middle of left of Democract center (who has any kind of shot) is Edwards. I think that tells a story right there. On the GOP side, Romney is trying to downplay religious conservatism in the articles I've seen, and trying to look more positive and open. McCain is going the hawk route on Iraq, but he tends to be seen already as centrist in comparison to a lot of the GOP, and I see him riding that (Iraq and defense aside) all the way through. And Giuliani is on similar ground, with a record of centrism going in, from his time as mayor (that he is as you said trying to spin a little bit).

 

Two caveats. One, there are lots of fringe candidates who have zero chance that are going the opposite direction (Kucinich doing his usual far left stuff, and Brownback playing the far right, as two good examples). I am not including those in the discussion, since they aren't really viable candidates. Two, the landscape is still shifting of course, so this could all change a lot depending on who drops off when.

NSS: I'm sorry but if you think once they swing to the fringe, they're gonna come back - I wanna point out one person we thought would do that in 2000. He's currently the President.

 

George Bush basically said I'm a Social Conservative *wink!*. Turns out it wasn't a "you know better" wink, it was just an eye twitch.

 

Assume the position they take on the campaign trail is the position they take in office, because for the last few Presidents, that's been entirely true.

 

Bush 41 was pro-choice too.... right up until he got the VP nod.

The problem with stories like these and the Obama madrassa story is that a lot of people will only remember reading the initial report and take it as true. They won't see that its completely bunk.

NSS: I'm sorry but if you think once they swing to the fringe, they're gonna come back - I wanna point out one person we thought would do that in 2000. He's currently the President.

 

George Bush basically said I'm a Social Conservative *wink!*. Turns out it wasn't a "you know better" wink, it was just an eye twitch.

 

Assume the position they take on the campaign trail is the position they take in office, because for the last few Presidents, that's been entirely true.

 

Bush 41 was pro-choice too.... right up until he got the VP nod.

There are certainly examples of those who did not. And those who did. That is kind of my point though - I think this year will be different than many others past, specifically in that the National election will see candidates act/speak much closer to center than what we are seeing of the recent Congressional elections (2006) or even some recent Prez elections (like 2004).

The problem with stories like these and the Obama madrassa story is that a lot of people will only remember reading the initial report and take it as true. They won't see that its completely bunk.

 

If this is the nugget that pushes one over the edge to not vote for Hillary, he or she should have their voting privileges taken away.

 

That decision could and should easily be made on her own public merits.

If this is the nugget that pushes one over the edge to not vote for Hillary, he or she should have their voting privileges taken away.

 

That decision could and should easily be made on her own public merits.

 

I know. This story alone won't make or break a candidate -- but a long series of them over the next year and a half may swing a significant amount of voters.

If this is the nugget that pushes one over the edge to not vote for Hillary, he or she should have their voting privileges taken away.

 

That decision could and should easily be made on her own public merits.

 

Is that as close as it's going to get to a mea culpa for continuing to perpetuate a long-debunked rumor as if it was a fact? If so, that is a shame.

Is that as close as it's going to get to a mea culpa for continuing to perpetuate a long-debunked rumor as if it was a fact? If so, that is a shame.

 

Apologize? To the likes of you on an internet message board? Puh-leeze.

 

It's politics. Bring your thick skin or go home.

 

You liberals are adorable.

There are certainly examples of those who did not. And those who did. That is kind of my point though - I think this year will be different than many others past, specifically in that the National election will see candidates act/speak much closer to center than what we are seeing of the recent Congressional elections (2006) or even some recent Prez elections (like 2004).

 

Exactly what has been done that's so far left as center in the new Congress?

Exactly what has been done that's so far left as center in the new Congress?

I said the elections, not their actions. Their actions thus far are pretty reasonable, to me, and I'd say there are some typically lefty things they are doing, and some less so. But in the elections, they were able to ride the wave of not-Bush, and it seemed to me anyway like many candidates were still pretty entrenched.

 

I do think, however, that during this last decade and the increase in divisiveness, the GOP went much farther from center than the Democrats did. Just my take. I've always been independent, but 10 years ago, I felt like a Republican with some Democrat leanings. Now, its the opposite. And I don't think my views have changed much.

 

The removal of that center, in Congress, was caused by a number of factors. One, the GOP lost many of those New England GOP'ers, who tended to be more centrist. Two, a lot of southern Blue Dog Dems lost out in the 90's with the combination of the family values crusade from the GOP, and because many blue dogs elected to not support the first Gulf War (and were summarily crushed in the elections after).

Apologize? To the likes of you on an internet message board? Puh-leeze.

 

It's politics. Bring your thick skin or go home.

 

You liberals are adorable.

 

i.e. I'm going to lie and spread unsubstantiated rumors and act like its no big deal when I get called on it.

Apologize? To the likes of you on an internet message board? Puh-leeze.

 

It's politics. Bring your thick skin or go home.

 

You liberals are adorable.

 

It's about more than about having thick skin, Sport. It's about having a bit of integrity. If you caught hold of a juicy Hillary story and ran with it thinking it was true, it's no big deal but I'd expect you would concede that a bit of fact checking might have been in order before propagating the error.

 

On the other hand, if knowingly perpetuating a mythology that has been debunked = politics to you, then that is sad. I would not characterize that as anything close to adorable.

And in a nutshell, this thread is exactly why I don't want to see a retread canditate on the ballot for President. We have gone God knows how long with the same stupid cycle of the party out of power digging for dirt and scandal, while the other party goes as far as they can to defend them.

And in a nutshell, this thread is exactly why I don't want to see a retread canditate on the ballot for President. We have gone God knows how long with the same stupid cycle of the party out of power digging for dirt and scandal, while the other party goes as far as they can to defend them.

Agreed. No one named Kerry, Edwards, Biden or McCain, please.

Apologize? To the likes of you on an internet message board? Puh-leeze.

 

It's politics. Bring your thick skin or go home.

 

You liberals are adorable.

 

Are you saying that lies are acceptable in politics? This report is false but no sense of regret for passing it on?

 

If honesty is adorable to you, that is sad.