Oh the Double Standards!

[A Theist]

The difference here, is that there was a reason to be concerned with Reagan's health. There wasn't and isn't one for Clinton's health.

You don't know that. If Hillary decides to run for president in 2016 she'll be the same age as Ronald Reagan when he ran for president in 1979 (both at 69). Hillary will be 73 years old at the end of serving a first term if elected. Unlike Hillary who suffered a head injury there was no health issues to speak of with Ronald Reagan when he ran for office for his first term as president. If there was reason to question Reagan's health at that time there's certainly reason to suspect Hillary's health and fitness for 2016.

[RaisdCath]

This gem after regaling us with your partisan political views. And you squeal about hypocrisy.

Unlike you on the left, I never pretended not to be to some extent. You guys on the left however, are just too naive and too blind in your worldview to realize how partisan and intolerant you actually are. No one is more partisan and such flat out looney tunes activists as those on the left. You're the ones pretending to uphold tolerance and scream about social justice while being the worse of Totalitarians.

---

I do hope this doesn't surprise you....

This had been a tactic of the political left since the publication in 1971 of Mr. Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals". In this case, Rule 12 seems to apply, tho others could be used also.
Quote: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Nope. It doesn't surprise me. Alinsky drafted the blue print for the radical left.
I like Alinsky's rule #4: Make the other side live up to their own book of rules. The radical left can't do that.

Rule #4 is useful to be sure...but using it has never bothered the radical left because the right never combats them. The radical left - fully supported by "the press" (or mass media) can do pretty much whatever it wishes to do.

I believe they apply these two radical rules a great deal as well:
Rule #5: Personal ridicule
Rule #8: Keep the pressure on.

Notice that Alinsky never recommended truth as a combat tactic or strategy. Seems "the press" (regardless of side) found this out during the clintoon administration and has honed it to a fine art.

[A Theist]

Rule #4 is useful to be sure...but using it has never bothered the radical left because the right never combats them. The radical left - fully supported by "the press" (or mass media) can do pretty much whatever it wishes to do.

I believe they apply these two radical rules a great deal as well:
Rule #5: Personal ridicule
Rule #8: Keep the pressure on.

Notice that Alinsky never recommended truth as a combat tactic or strategy. Seems "the press" (regardless of side) found this out during the clintoon administration and has honed it to a fine art.

Rule #4 is useful to be sure...but using it has never bothered the radical left because the right never combats them. The radical left - fully supported by "the press" (or mass media) can do pretty much whatever it wishes to do.

Yes. All absolutely true....Bernie Goldberg also sums it up perfectly in his book, "Crazies to the Left of Me and Wimps to the Right". The Crazies certainly dominate the left and the Right is just too wimpish to confront them. You brought up another good point about the press and mass media. It's mostly corrupted by radical far left ideologues. MSLSD Noise is a prime example of the far left's ministry of propaganda.

Notice that Alinsky never recommended truth as a combat tactic or strategy. Seems "the press" (regardless of side) found this out during the clintoon administration and has honed it to a fine art.

True again. Alinsky preached "Means to an End". If that means fabricating issues, stirring hostility, creating controversies, sowing dissatisfaction and discontent, etc....to meet their end game, regardless of how underhanded and how many it hurts, it's all fair to them as long as it pushes a radical leftist ideology. Take for example, the left's so-called "war on women", "racial inequality", "class warfare", and so on, just to fabricate issues which stir hostility, resentment, dissention, and controversy....

"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

[Ryantology]

So, hold on, I need to get something straight. When Hillary actually was in the hospital, the charge from the right was that she came down with Benghazi Flu, and that it was all a sham to avoid having to answer questions. Now, it's a legitimate medical issue that warrants attention. In conservative circles, the truth is whatever is convenient at the moment, it seems.

Take for example, the left's so-called "war on women", "racial inequality", "class warfare", and so on, just to fabricate issues which stir hostility, resentment, dissention, and controversy....

Just so you know, the reason why the right wing as we know it is a political dead man walking is because conservatives have invented and worsened these real problems. It's not because the left fooled people into thinking they are real problems, but because the 30 year campaign of Reaganomics and the culture wars, designed to fool people into thinking they aren't real problems, has come apart at the seams. They know who is trying to keep them down and take away what little they still have. They know that you don't care whether they live or die, because people like you think that the real problem America faces is shit like this:



Also, what is the right's obsession with MSNBC? The mainstream media? I know a lot of you have trouble understanding that the 20th century ended almost 15 years ago, but TV news and newspapers are the media of old people. It's like, you're on the internet, but you just don't realize that's how people my age, and certainly younger, get their news. Nobody reads newspapers anymore, and TV news ratings have been in decline for a long time. Nobody watches MSNBC, and I don't come across a great many liberals who even like the channel. Other than Rachel Maddow, there's nothing on there. It's not our Fox News.

So, by all means, rail against the Lamestream Media (which is far friendlier to regressive causes than you seem to notice). Keep telling hard-working, struggling people that they are parasites and moochers. Keep telling women and minorities that they should shut up and know their place. Keep fighting last century's battles. It's why you're fucked in this century.

[A Theist]

...because people like you think that the real problem America faces is shit like this:

Oh...is that you and your boyfriend? Cute couple.

[Ryantology]

Oh...is that you and your boyfriend? Cute couple.

I'd be a very lucky guy if so. But, no, it's not me, so you can keep fapping to it.

[A Theist]

Oh...is that you and your boyfriend? Cute couple.

I'd be a very lucky guy if so. But, no, it's not me, so you can keep fapping to it.

[Ryantology]

So, that exchange having been concluded, I wonder which of us appears more secure in his sexuality? ; )

[A Theist]

So, that exchange having been concluded, I wonder which of us appears more secure in his sexuality? ; )

I'm pretty secure being a straight guy.

[Isun]

The difference here, is that there was a reason to be concerned with Reagan's health. There wasn't and isn't one for Clinton's health.

You don't know that. If Hillary decides to run for president in 2016 she'll be the same age as Ronald Reagan when he ran for president in 1979 (both at 69). Hillary will be 73 years old at the end of serving a first term if elected. Unlike Hillary who suffered a head injury there was no health issues to speak of with Ronald Reagan when he ran for office for his first term as president. If there was reason to question Reagan's health at that time there's certainly reason to suspect Hillary's health and fitness for 2016.

It isn't always about age, it is about evidence. Something that republicans ignore and deny.

There was clear evidence that there was a problem with Reagan. There is no doubt there was a problem with John McCains judgement.

But at this point in time, there is no reason to think that Clinton's judgement is anything but solid. Now if in the next two years, she shows poor judgement or senility...then we can discuss it.