Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:31:26 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:


On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:05:33 -0500, Rex B
wrote:


They have more per-capita nutjobs than the other two parties put
together, unfortunately. McCain would improve the property values but
it would likely cost him any chance of being elected. Can you imagine
how vigorously the Demos & GOP would unite in opposition of a plausible
3rd party?

At this point I'd be happy with a candidate I could halfway trust even
if I disagreed extensively with him/her.

That's basically where I am with McCain

I trust McCain..and thats the problem. He has certainly stated his
positions..and they are not where I wish the Republican Party to go.


But George W. Bush IS?!? AYOOYFM? He's acting more like a Dem than
most Dems do. thud (OK, a wildly schizophrenic Dem.)

Although I don't agree with a few of his stances (guns, abortion), I'd
much rather have McCain in office now than the Shrub. I can't think of
one single issue on which I agree with the Shrub. He's going to
destabilize our country so thoroughly that anyone could waltz in and
take over. The farce they call Homeland Security is just the tip of
the iceberg. We're less safe today than before 9/11, in part due to
the alienation by the entire rest of the world because of his
policies.




After 230 years, this system is getting long in the tooth. History
teaches that republics average about 250 years before they fall into
tyranny. There is plenty of evidence we're on our way to empire, and the
current President and Congress are simply setting up the tools for a
future ruler who will make much better use of them in a police state.
The sad part for me is that I'd always imagined Republicans would govern
differently than the corrupt Dems they replaced. Hillary? She's a
shoe-in, and IMO she may well be the last elected executive for this
country. I can see her wearing a crown, can't you?