Didn't liberals claim Reagan was too old?

christiefan915 said:
I don't remember any liberal ever starting a thread with the sole purpose of poking fun at a conservative woman pol's appearance. I've certainly seen plenty of that coming from the conservative side, though. Bravo and DY are the biggest offenders but there were others.

So if appearance isn't or shouldn't be an issue, why did Y O U post a pic of Hillary and call her a "raddled old harridan"?
Click to expand...

:thisisgettinggood:
 
Damocles said:
Age isn't and shouldn't be the reason people dislike her policy. Seriously. We have to do better than this. Looks have nothing to do with the Presidency unless you believe the hype that women will vote for a good looking guy over a mofugly one.

If you didn't think McCain with his old man whistle was too old to run then saying it about HillBillary is just hypocrisy.

Personally I think that a nation of 300+ Million people can find more than 3 families to run for President. We're not here to create our own royalty.

Time for new ideas from new courageous leaders.
Click to expand...

That's not what this thread is about; it is an illustration of the blatant and ignorant hypocrisy that defines the Democratic Party.
 
Damocles said:
I mean people who aren't from the same three families that we anoint to run for high office so repeatedly. The age isn't the difference, it is the new ideas that we need.
Click to expand...

I'm amused by the declaration that we need new ideas when so many abound; but unfortunately for the uneducated majority, they are more concerned about what corrupt politicians can get for them than they are for real change.

If you are for REAL change; demand term limits on Congress.

If you want REAL change; abolish the abomination called the IRS tax code and supplant it with the Fair Tax or a flat tax.

If you want REAL change; abolish ALL Federal subsidies.

If you want REAL change; abolish SS which is merely a ponzi scheme used to fund Federal deficits.

If you want REAL change; abolish useless departments like Education, Energy and Housing.

If you want REAL change; demand the Federal Government balance it's budget in peacetime and fund all programs it passes.

Anything less is mere political posturing and window dressing.
 
When a Republican M A N is running, his age is an issue.


When a Republican woman is running, her looks are an issue.


But age and looks are off the table when discussing the Hildebeast of Benghazi.
 
Damocles said:
I mean people who aren't from the same three families that we anoint to run for high office so repeatedly. The age isn't the difference, it is the new ideas that we need.
Click to expand...

I agree. But we know that new ideas don't come from the conservative side.
 
Truth Detector said:
What part of "it was Democrats who claimed Reagan was too old making it a campaign issue" do you continue to not comprehend?

The point being, I have to get my crayons, that Democrats who seemed convinced that Reagan was too old to serve, now hypocritically think Hillary, who is as old, is infinately qualified. What changed other than political affiliation?
Click to expand...

Yes, but by pointing out this "hypocrisy" (I'd be nice to have some evidence, although I'm sure there WERE people who thought Reagan was too old at one point), you must either agree with the notion that Reagan was "too old" and therefore Hillary is as well, or that neither Hillary nor Reagan are/were "too old".

The first logical notion concedes a point to the "liberals" that the OP is trying to denigrate with this thread (that Reagan, arguably the Republicans' most brag-worthy president was "too old" when he took office), and the second means that the OP must concede that Hillary is not "too old" going against HIS OWN opinion of her posted in the first message of the thread.

Guess what EITHER option makes the OP?

A HYPOCRITE.
 
She's the only candidate the Democrat faithful can think of.

I asked for alternatives and not a single name was suggested.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
Yes, but by pointing out this "hypocrisy" (I'd be nice to have some evidence, although I'm sure there WERE people who thought Reagan was too old at one point), you must either agree with the notion that Reagan was "too old" and therefore Hillary is as well, or that neither Hillary nor Reagan are/were "too old".

The first logical notion concedes a point to the "liberals" that the OP is trying to denigrate with this thread (that Reagan, arguably the Republicans' most brag-worthy president was "too old" when he took office), and the second means that the OP must concede that Hillary is not "too old" going against HIS OWN opinion of her posted in the first message of the thread.

Guess what EITHER option makes the OP?

A HYPOCRITE.
Click to expand...

Dear clueless; it is not me or the Republicans who think either are too old. We are merely pointing out the continuing glaring stupidity and hypocrisy of Democrats and their moronic stupid talking points.

Thanks for playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top