Cracks around the edges

The Washington Times ^ | March 6, 2006 | Suzanne Fields

[maine-iac7]

If his book is as interesting and clearly written as this article, it wont get read much

even his title is inane

[nopardons]

Nothing and obviously, he is NOT really a conservative, as much as he is sort of a conservative with some strange leanings...a la that "environmentalism" crack.

[maine-iac7]

reread bybybill's post

the demorats and their mouthpieces, the MSM, are going to start throwing dung everywhichway but loose to try to obscure, for one thing, the investigation coming down on treasonous Rockeee and his friends...and who knows how far this treason spreads? There are a lot of nervous folk in DC tonight, methinks.

They will be squealing and snarling and pointing fingers wildly in every direction in an attempt to deflect our attention.

Don't fall prey...

[nopardons]

Because they ARE a joke!

[nopardons]

They would have made Washington THE KING OF AMERICA, if he would have accepted it.

Please learn some American history, before you try to revise it. There were NO political parties when Washing tom became president. But it only took a few cycles, for people to realized that the man getting the most votes would be president and the man in second would be V.P. for our way of choosing our president and his V.P., to become what it is still.

[driftless]

"Dreher insufferable"

ditto. I avoid his articles like the plague. He uses a lot of words to basically say nothing.

[Old_Mil]

They would have made Washington THE KING OF AMERICA, if he would have accepted it. Please learn some American history, before you try to revise it. There were NO political parties when Washing tom became president. But it only took a few cycles, for people to realized that the man getting the most votes would be president and the man in second would be V.P. for our way of choosing our president and his V.P., to become what it is still.

The designation of British loyalists during the American Revolution - as Tories - is well known. And many on the revolutionary side identified with the English Whigs, which continued to be the party in favor of Parliament's keeping the king in check. Hence the example of the "whig" telling Washington that he couldn't win.

[King Prout]

hey!
I'm a hunter, therefore I am an "environmentalist" of a sort

[nopardons]

Read the article...the man is an enviro wacko.

[nopardons]

ROTFLMSOPIMP............revisionist history is NOT gonna fly here and most assuredly NOT with me! Go read some good history books on this matter and stop trying to make your position appear to be "real", by fact fudging.

[Jaysun]

I'll say this only partly in jest, but the word you meant to use is "gist."

DAMN!

(Jaysun pulls off his rubber mask and it's - gasp - an idiot!)

"If it hadn't been for Dr. Elhombrelibre and you pesky kids......."

[Old_Mil]

ROTFLMSOPIMP............revisionist history is NOT gonna fly here and most assuredly NOT with me! Go read some good history books on this matter and stop trying to make your position appear to be "real", by fact fudging.

Well then, I guess that settles it. You've decreed that it's revisionist history, and therefore it must be. /sarc

[nopardons]

You would have been on far better footing, had you talked about FEDERALISTS and NONFEDERALIST. The "TORY" and "WHIG" reference was patently ridiculous!

However, to be absolutely FACTUAL, there were NO political parties when Washington became president; NONE! No matter how you want to play word games and accuse me of being incorrect, you're STILL damned dead wrong!