Posted on 06/30/2014 6:04:41 AM PDT by Loud Mime
Oh great now FR will be anti Barry Goldwater?
Jumping the shark is not strong enough a new term is needed.
“Ban use of ‘RINO’” Huckabee? No. What produced that guess?
Goldwater was “head and shoulders above” Reagan? Maybe in his war hawk days, but not in his left-turning days. With all due respect, this is getting close to deification of a man.
More like Goldwater would be anti-FR. Facts are facts, either way.
Within oneself?
I will freely concede that Goldwater was not “head AND shoulders” above Reagan. ;^)
As for the “war hawk” slur, it was Goldwater who warned of the dangers of a ground war in Vietnam without strategic support,i.e.,interdicting Soviet supplies to Hanoi by mining Haiphong etc. Johnson wanted to avoid standing up to the USSR.
It was for this that Goldwater was smeared with the warmonger label.
Well, for my part, I regard “dove” as more of a slur than “hawk”. The liberals’ lies w.r.t. Goldwater were and are a national disgrace.
In spite of his apparent unChristlike conservative purity, Goldwater put forward the question.
If anything, the it, the actions of the current ruling despots is more treasonous than in 1960 or so.
It should be fairly obvious to a student of not only history but of the present.
[]Jumping the shark is not strong enough a new term is needed.[]
Neo-Freeping?
I’ve seen lots of anger on FR over the last few years, resulting in a lower quality of discourse—or none at all. Some of it is right in line with the method of liberal “gotcha” tactics. Oh well, that’s life.
More attacks on Christianity. It’s insulting to suggest to a Christian that anyone but Christ can or ought to be Christ-like as a continuity of one’s life, you know; but it does not stop people from attempting to deify Goldwater. California seems to have had too much of an influence on you.
I don’t see how the liberals in the 1960s are less treasonous, if that’s what you are talking about. One built upon the dungheap of the other.
You are correct on each point.
There was no attack on Christianity by this Christian
What there was was a personal attack on me made because other arguments were flimsy at best
The idea of wealthy people not knowing the plight of the poor is easily sold to voters, thus the candidates do their best to show themselves as exactly like the voters, (at a earlier time). (my understanding) I can be wrong. It works with the low information voters.
Well, I’m sorry, but you really are not being clear.
Hillary’s “Plain Folk Appeal,” delivered as a message that they were standing in food lines after they left the White House, was beyond believable. But some people believed it.
When our voter base is THAT stupid, we have to educate the electorate before we do anything else.
Which reminds me. Just last weekend my brother-in-law told me that he believes that the reason Gabby Giffords was shot was because Sarah Palin put crosshairs on her CDistrict. It was Sarah’s fault.
Unreal.
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.