And, the first person to raise the issue of winning was you: “The first half of your life was wasted betting on the wrong horse”

Finally, the conservative revolution began when Goldwater when chosen to run 1964. You can be forgiven for knowing so little about conservatism. Very few liberals do. That’s why conservatives have won so many elections since 1968 (for the record 7 – 3).

If you look around the threads, you’ll see I’ve got some questions for you. If you answer those, I’ll consider answering yours.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/10/08/partisanship-is-not-extremism/#comments

And, remember, I said would consider it.

Winning is real important to you isn’t it Frank? How far would you go to win?

You say you don’t stretch your principles. Semantics aside, what does that mean to you?

1) We are not “balanced on the precipice of a revolution”: We are in the second generation of a revolution that began in 1964.

2) A key element of revolution is not revenge. “Revolutions are born of hope.” The key element is a founding ideology, brought to to life by the next generation (see Crane Brinton)

3) I’ve hardly been betting on the wrong horse. I’ve voted for the winner in the Presidential Election since 1968, each time but 3.

What’s your record like?

You and yours seem to feel you are balanced on the precipice of a ‘revolution’.

A key element of revolution is revenge.

I hope 35 years is enough to quench your need for ‘catch-up’. It would seem you feel the first half of your life was wasted betting on the wrong horse. I hope if you get what you want, you can look back and say it was worth it.

I hope it becomes a pattern for the next 35 years. I can’t wait to post, “Bias? What bias?”

Nut I’m not taking your word for it.

I don’t set myself up for continued ridicule. I am ridiculed by the ignorant, defending the indefensible.

Yes, you may be blessed, but for reasons far beyond your comprehension.

So, I guess that means that George W. Bush’s 23rd “pep rally war speech” in the last 12 months is a pack of lies? After all, it really hasn’t changed.

Frank…you’re remarkable (or, perhaps rather unremarkable) in your ability to set yourself up for continued ridicule.

From “Talking Point Frankie, ” to “Dig me Dudes.. I’m Dugger!” ….I am reinforced in my view that those of us on the left, if nothing else, are truly blessed not to be them.

JK

Clinton haters (99.9% of the right) also hated Clinton because he very uncomfortably reminded them of all of their own moral flaws.

Of course, now that Clinton is gone, rightfull attention is being paid to the right’s poster boys for immorality…William Bennett (gambling addiction) and Rush Limbaugh (drug addiction), to name a few. Bunch of hypocrytical fools.

One more thing. Frank, you’re boring, in a broken record kind of way (Another hallmark of dumb people.).

JK

Repetition does not tend toward truth; on the contrary, it tends towards lies.

As for Gore going to VN–he did and there’s no question he honored his military commitment. You can pretend that Gore’s service in VN was less than honorable–but to do so you’ll have to smear tens of thousands of VN vets who went to VN but did not see combat. You’ll also have to smear hundreds of thousands of servicemen who served during that time but didn’t go to VN.

But that’s a deflection.

Again, I don’t necessarily begrudge AWOL George seeking to avoid service in VN. But in avoiding VN, he should have honored the commitment he did make.

He didn’t.

If George Bush (who, BTW, is not “my boy” — inaccuracy #2) got out of going to Viet Nam by having his father pull strings, that is 1) Something that was no doubt done by all manner of politicians and influential people from Portland, ME to Portland, OR; and 2) Not so different from getting “your boy” Al Gore a cushy, extremely temporary rear -echelon non – combat job in Viet Nam; and not as bad as 3) Writing a tear – stained letter to the local Draft officer, as “your boy” William Jefferson Davis Clinton did.

And, as some of you might recall, if Clinton hadn’t done that, Bush’s military record wouldn’t have even been an issue.

That’s what the military experts did as well. And they’re posted for everyone to see as well.

Who to believe? Fact Check or US military experts?

I’ll believe the official documents, thank you. That’s what FactCheck uses for its analysis and posts for everyone to see.

Who to believe? Fact Check or US military experts?

Face facts, Frankie–your boy avoided Vietnam by having his daddy pull strings for him. Yet, AWOL george couldn’t be bothered with fulfilling that commitment, either.

[I]t s been repeatedly demonstrated. Bush had a commitment to the TANG; he failed to honor the terms of that commitment.

Not according to FactCheck.org