Posted on 08/09/2007 4:37:27 AM PDT by IrishMike
The infallible Washington Times reports that up for sale is one of the most famous scenes of infantilism in the 20th century, "Woodstock." Actually, what is on the block is the late Max Yasgur's New York farm, 38 acres of which were used for the 1969 Woodstock music festival that hagiographers for the "1960s Generation" have ever since boomed as a pivotal event in American history. Such rock singers as Jimi Hendrix and Richie Havens got together before a stupefied crowd of some 500,000 eternal children to sing of peace, and freedom, and mind-numbing substances, even the most feeble of which have now been shown to be extremely deleterious to intellect and spirit. Better it would be to inhale Marlboros than to fool with the proscribed substances that eventually killed or demented many of the singers and attendees in that famous field.
As for "peace and freedom," wars have continued and the specific war that the troubadours of Woodstock had in mind ended only when our Democratic-controlled Congress broke an American pledge to send support to embattled South Vietnamese forces. The North Vietnamese communists beat them. .... Drunk and disorderly rockers never pacified any region I know of, and many have lived irritable and belligerent lives, leaving children and other loved ones in a hell of a mess. ........... As I have been noting of late, the aging 1960s generation -- divided as it has always been by its left-wing and right-wing -- is now facing its political swan song. The Republicans and the Democrats will probably nominate members of this generation to battle in 2008 one more time. Now the face-off is on again, probably with Hillary opposing Rudy.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Rudy and Hillary are two of 'em, for sure. Thompson could be a third (if he wants it, which I doubt), and the fourth could be Gore, Obama, or somebody else.
After Hillary is elected with 35% of the popular vote, hang on to your hats.
BS. In August of 2003, Howard Dean looked like a certainty and Kerry was fading fast....
Never could smoke them Camel Lights. Too light. I liked Camel Filters. Mmmm. Turkish and American blend. I smoked for 10 years, and I quit 10 years ago. Quitting isn’t super easy, but it doesn’t take any skill, just will. You simply have to want to quit badly enough that you’ll put up with the temporary hassle and discomfort that comes with quitting. For me, after a couple of months, I was home free. But to a heavy smoker, a month feels like a century if you can’t have a smoke. I am very glad I quit, and I don’t miss it at all. Especially with today’s cig prices. Insane.
I like your opinion.
Maybe vice president;
.
.
.
CIA, Defense, homeland security, DOJ
other good options for the former husband of the unknown cousin.
That works for me. ;-D
he sure likes to get along
.
.
.
.
Which doubles as an asset and a liability for my man W,
a liability mostly recently dealing with that cesspool congress.
If it ends up being Rudy vs. Hillary, Michael Bloomberg might as well run, too.....then we can have three liberals from New York running for president.
In August of 2003, Howard Dean looked like a certainty and Kerry was fading fast....
.
.
.
.
Then came the scream.
$6:15 a pack yesterday
That’ll be quite a contest. Eva Peron would be battling someone that looks better than her (at least when he’s in drag). Of course that isn’t saying much. The back end of a Greyhound bus looks better than Eva Peron and her shreiking socialist voice.
I am not a Rudy hater..but I would not vote for him at all..and I do not think he will be on the other side when it ocmes to the primaries...That will be Duncan Hunter..
Who has shown more cleavage ...?
Rudy in drag or the Hildabeast.
Please, let’s don’t call us Rudy Haters! It’s not a matter of hating the man, just that we don’t believe him to be the person that represents conservative America all that well.
I, for one, refuse to fall for the same “stuff” that we heard over and over when Bush was running in his first primary. We were told that as good little Republicans we had better vote for him or else we would end up with a Democrat in the White house. While that argument was most likely true in 2004, it was not necessarily true in 2000. We might have saved ourselves the present agony of electing a president who has turned against so many values of his party, such as his giving the country away to foreign illegal aliens.
Now is the time to stand up to the party and say.... NO, we will NOT elect Rudy. Give us someone with the values we believe in.
Back in 2000 election primaries I was told here on Free Republic essentially to support Bush or shut up and leave. I am afraid, if it comes to shutting up again for all I believe in, I will chose to leave.
When I used to smoke, cigs were $3.00 to $4.00 a CARTON. Late 60s, early 70s.
You were ‘saved by grace’ and gave them up !
Actually, I quit smoking about 5 years before I was saved by grace.
You have to think Electoral College here - the Democratic candidate is in very good shape for 2008 if he or she doesn't have to defend any of the 2004 Kerry states. We are heading straight for the opposite of 2000 - a popular vote win for the Republican as red statesturn out en masse to expresss their disgust for Hillary, coupled with a narrow Electoral loss as Ohio goes Democrat and none of the 2004 Kerry states change hands.
I don't see any of the other Republican candidates taking back even one of those Kerry states - yet people on FR seem to think that because Thompson or Hunter might win some of the Southern states 70-30 they are better candidates. It boggles the mind...unless these people just want to lose honorably and make a statement. Rudy may not get the huge Southern popular vote that someone like Thompson could, but he'll win all of the 2004 Bush states in the South easily - and he has a much better chance to flip some of those Kerry states back to red. A Republican who wants to win must be able to do that.
Rudy is - like GWB, sad to say - essentially a JFK Democrat. But the American public has shown time and time again that they prefer JFK Democrats in the White House - they always vote for the candidate (even Reagan) who looks and sounds more like one.
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.