Posted on 09/12/2014 6:04:44 PM PDT by EveningStar
“uhh... Richard Nixon? Failed VP candidate in 1960. POTUS from 1969 to 1974.
FDR. Failed VP candidate in 1924. POTUS from 1933 to 1945.
Do you know ANYTHING about American History?”
I stand by by original statement, “No other former VP candidate in our history, winner or loser. has remained as relevant on the American political and cultural scene as long as Sarah Palin.”
I stand by that statement as it is historically accurate.
Franklin Roosevelt, after losing the election for Vice President returned to private life until he ran for governor of New York. Being in private life for that time, FDR was not very politically relevant and was not culturally relevant.
Richard Nixon, after losing the 1960 election for president did run run and lose the election for governor of California in 1962 and withdrew from public life until 1968. In the time from 1960 to the time he announced his run for the GOP nomination in 1968, it would be difficult for one to surmise that Richard Nixon was either politically or culturally relevant.
From the moment she was nominated for the vice presidency and clearly to this very day and beyond, there is no doubt that Sarah Palin is both politically and culturally relevant.
We don’t even know what happened. Where I live, all the libs seem to have forgotten about the endless follies of the Kennedy clan, the Jesse Jackson family, Al Gore’s son, Billy Carter, Hillary’s brothers, John Edwards, the Clinton follies, and all the other Dem trailer trash scandals in the last 20 years. It’s as if the Palin troubles - WHATEVER THEY MAY BE - trump everything else. And that pisses me off.
“Please tell me what that’s supposed to mean. Does it mean anything other than that Dems have the media on their side and are therefore better able to get away with things? “
It means libs are better at defending things that don’t obviously blow up in their faces. Example Cliven Bundy. Good cause right up til he started holding forth on race relations instead of keeping it about govt over reach.
It’s not like it’s a new phenomenon and yet somehow conservatives seem to step it in some way that the already biased media doesn’t even have to work at to make it look bad.
One has nothing to do with the other...
The Nazis and Tojo could only be stopped by force, tearing off your shirt and throwing punches because some guy said something is bit Christian, in my opinion.
Maybe I am too genteel, but that’s the way I see it, and I spent years in Moose Pass, Seward, Kenai and Anchorage with the Forest Service and years in North Idaho working for the BLM and Ski Schweitzer as a security guard, so I’ve seen lots of drunks and aggressive people.
Ed
Oh, good point! I didn’t think of that angle.
Any issues out there you arent fully lib on?
“Any issues out there you arent fully lib on?”
Lol. Nice try. Sorry hypocrisy stinks. Doesn’t matter who does it.
You consider 50 YO men hitting on teenagers acceptable? Or would you personally drill the idiot that did it? Personally I’d rather be thought hypocritical by a lib than stand for it but hey, You are welcome to behave like a lib and watch.
PDS.
“You consider 50 YO men hitting on teenagers acceptable? Or would you personally drill the idiot that did it? Personally I’d rather be thought hypocritical by a lib than stand for it but hey, You are welcome to behave like a lib and watch.”
You’re right I’m sorry. The Palins are gods among men lol.
All better now?
Sure is! I always feel better when helping a lib expose himself for what he is.
You didn’t answer a simple question though. Do you find 50YO men hitting on teenagers OK or not? Your avoidance would suggest your answer.
“You didn’t answer a simple question though. Do you find 50YO men hitting on teenagers OK or not? Your avoidance would suggest your answer.”
I think a drunken brawl exactly the thing to do. It’s the perfect solution to almost any issue.
It’s really classy when the women get involved as well.
I mean nothing says serious political contender like a drunken brawl.
You’re funny.
And you’re a liberal that ducked again. Why is it so hard for a supposed conservative posting on a right wing site to say ‘No, it isn’t acceptable to hit on a kid and deserves a beatdown.
You are awful sure it was a drunken brawl based solely on the reporting of several Romney operatives though. Go ahead and admit it. You STILL want him to run doncha? Between you and the idiot on the other thread that thinks christianity and Israel are mutually exclusive, I wonder if I didn’t go to DU by mistake.
...Rule number 9 — Have a good time!
“And you’re a liberal that ducked again. Why is it so hard for a supposed conservative posting on a right wing site to say ‘No, it isn’t acceptable to hit on a kid and deserves a beatdown.
You are awful sure it was a drunken brawl based solely on the reporting of several Romney operatives though. Go ahead and admit it. You STILL want him to run doncha? Between you and the idiot on the other thread that thinks christianity and Israel are mutually exclusive, I wonder if I didn’t go to DU by mistake.”
I wasn’t there. Unless you were you’re also using that same assumption mechanism.
Here’s what I do know. It made all the networks. A brawl, regardless of how you see it, looks bad and trying to justify and rationalize bad behavior is hypocrisy no matter who you are.
You don’t seem to grasp that reality isn’t what you wish it were. You seem to want to make decisions based on your feelings.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. Well it was really reality that hurt your feelings. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the thing.
Not sure why you think my feelings are hurt. I already said outing libs makes me happy. And a quick read through the top page of your history shows just what your ‘conservatism’ actually consists of.
“Not sure why you think my feelings are hurt. I already said outing libs makes me happy. And a quick read through the top page of your history shows just what your ‘conservatism’ actually consists of.”
I think your feelings got hurt because you took my post as a shot at the Palins.
I never said anything at all about the Palins. I just pointed out the hypocrisy in rationalizing behavior that if anybody else did it, it would be condemned.
Funny, your posts show a couple shots at the Palins. I mean we CAN read you know.
But you STILL won’t answer a simple question. Sure dance good though.
“Funny, your posts show a couple shots at the Palins. I mean we CAN read you know.
But you STILL won’t answer a simple question. Sure dance good though.”
Those are shots at the people who want to suspend reality in Sarahs favor.
I don’t actually have an opinion on them either way.
I might if she throws her hat in the ring but so far that hasn’t happened.
I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to get your family involved in a brawl.
If there was inappropriate behavior then handle it like an adult. A family free for all doesn’t meet that standard.
You obviously have a different standard or else you’re engaging in that hypocrisy I spoke of.
I guess it all depends on what the definition of is is. Lol
Now we get somewhere. If you are cool with letting someone my age hit on your teenage kid without decking the perv, that speaks volumes about you. So yea. We have two VERY different outlooks on things.
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.