Posted on 09/01/2008 8:26:27 AM PDT by sam_paine
How many times have we seen this photo on FR?
How many times have we propagated the Huma/Hillary lesbian rumor mill with a wink and a nod and a [POST]?
Please read posts #141 and #200 to see why I’m so upset at this thread
There IS no "striking adult resemblance" between Chelsea Clinton and Web Hubbell. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Not in the shape of the head and face, nor in the facial features. Chelsea Clinton very closely resembles her maternal grandmother.
This is a photo of Dorothy and Hugh Rodham, and their two children (I think they later had another son) circa the early 1950's. Compare the shape of Dorothy's face, and her facial features to Chelsea.
Here is a photo taken sometime within the last 10 years. It shows a now aged Dorothy Rodham with her grandaughter, Chelsea, and her daughter, Hillary:
Shape of their faces -- nearly identical.
Cheekbones -- identical.
Chins and jawlines -- identical, allowing for their different ages.
Noses -- identical.
Eyes, eyebrows, space between the eyes -- all identical, again allowing for their different ages.
Mouth -- all identical, with the same straight upper lip and bowed lower lip.
Conservatives claim to be better than their political opposites on the Left. Prove it.
Is illustrating a striking adult resemblance between a candidate's child and a prominent colleague/confidante equal to what's being said about Palin’s daughter and husband?Your answer was yes.
So "illustrating a striking adult resemblance between a candidate's child and a prominent colleague/confidante "
"what's being said about Palin’s daughter and husband"
I'm not going to go into what is being said about Palin's family, I'm sure you know.
Believing those two scenarios are equal does show a moral compass that is a bit askew.
Syncro, it is strange that out of >200 posts, yours is the ONLY ONE that slammed me for my very carefully worded comment.
We already do it here at FR, every day, 99.9% of the time... Where have you been??? Ostracizing us in front of the world serves our enemy’s purpose... I need to prove nothing else to you
Fact of the matter is, Chelsea Clinton was attacked (despite her age) in the same fashion Bristol Palin is being attacked right now. And in both cases, the attackers are attempting to go after their political opponents.
You mean online? Oh...only hanging around here since 1997 or so.
Ostracizing us in front of the world serves our enemy’s purpose...
Who's ostracizing us? Perhaps you meant "criticizing"? Better that FReepers self-examine and correct their own weaknesses -- or are you insinuating that we have none. Besides, why are you afraid of what "the world" might take from this thread if there is "no moral equivalence" between the Chelsea-Hubbell matter and the Palin matter?
I need to prove nothing else to you.
Not you, personally, but as a group, self-styled "real" conservatives do, at least to me.
I was pointing out that it is rather a broad brush to say that more than half here would “be a little “giddy” if a hurricane hit during the DNC”
I don't believe that to be true and was making that point.
Sorry to have offended you.
Never been one in a million, guess I'll just have to settle for one in 200...
On the 2nd question... Easy answer... The MSM will spin it as such... They’ll point to stuff like this and say, they’re equally outrageous
Exactly! On all fronts
Too late. It was not demonstrated by me though.
Second, "illustrating" something is the same as "saying" something.
I was responding to what was said, not what it could be taken to mean.
Fashion, ok maybe.
Equalizing the nature and details of the scenarios is not morally possible. That's my point.
Whatever. “Your moral compass is askew because I said so (and because others might have talked about it).” LOL
They would be right. The Chelsea-Hubbell cruelty IS equally outrageous.
What you're really saying is let's not wash our dirty laundry in public.
If you really think it’s the same thing, you’re clusless.. Go back and read 141 and 200 to see why you’re clueless
That’s clueless, not clusless
I don't think it is, I know it is. You can spew or cite all the rationalizations you want, but wanton cruelty is wanton cruelty no matter who practices it and for what reasons.
Sic em, lady! :P
Prove it? Show me a conservative blog site equal in cruelty to DU. You seem to presume quite a bit about me, but you are not correct there either. I doubt Chelsea could care less about that morph, afterall, she’s an adult. She knows better by now.
You mean you don't consider yourself a moral, upstanding person? Hey...whatever floats your boat.
I doubt Chelsea could care less about that morph, afterall, she’s an adult. She knows better by now.
Chelsea was a schoolchild when those ugly, cruel rumors about Hubbell being her "real" father made the rounds of conservatives sites like FR. She was in grammar school when cruel mocking posts about her looks also made the rounds.
So, is cruelty toward a child something you can excuse and/or rationalize on the basis that she's an adult now? Since you're not into folks assuming things, how can you be so certain Chelsea "knows better by now?" How do you know what harm conservative forums peppered with cruel, mocking comments toward her looks and parentage might have had then, and whether or not it might continue to hurt her to this day? What about children she may have one day? This crap will still be here on the internet, waiting for them to stumble across it in the future. What do you think Chelsea will say to her kids in order to protect them from the shock of coming across some conservative post saying their grandfather is really not their grandfather?
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.