On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap that both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap that
both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and
Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

If Perot wasn't around, Bush 41 would have been elected to a second term.

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap that
both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and
Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

If Perot wasn't around, Bush 41 would have been elected to a second term.

Thank the stars that idiot (dumber than his son, even) wasn't elected
to another term. He did nothing for this country.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap
that
both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and
Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the
cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

If Perot wasn't around, Bush 41 would have been elected to a second term.

Thank the stars that idiot (dumber than his son, even) wasn't elected
to another term. He did nothing for this country.


You mean, aside from capturing Noriega, tossing Saddam's army from Kuwait,
preventing Saddam's army from capturing the Saudi oil fields, and serving as
President when the Berlin Wall fell?

Nope, nothing useful happened as a result of his Presidency.

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap
that
both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and
Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the
cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

If Perot wasn't around, Bush 41 would have been elected to a second term.

Thank the stars that idiot (dumber than his son, even) wasn't elected
to another term. He did nothing for this country.


You mean, aside from capturing Noriega,
Yeah, and that helped our country how??

tossing Saddam's army from Kuwait,

And that did what good for our country?

preventing Saddam's army from capturing the Saudi oil fields,
That was a unilateral effort. Thank the U.N for that, which you right
wingers despise so much because they won't knee-jerk into a war.

and serving as
President when the Berlin Wall fell?

and that did what for our country? And also, who set that whole thing
up?

Nope, nothing useful happened as a result of his Presidency.
Exactly, thank you for agreeing.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap that
both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and
Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

Pee-Rot very much showed that there is a possibility of a 3rd party taking
over.