Yet another religious cult raided

[Occhidiangela]

I figured that by going to a blinders-on partisan website: the McCain website.

I had remembered a McCain that had some differences with Bush. However, soon after locking up the nomination, the McCain website showed a changed man. A man in line with his party, rather than a man leading his party. I think we've had enough of that.

We shall see whether or not he can lead his party, since he's not in a formal party leadership role at the moment, or not, pending his success in getting elected. If he fails to get elected, that answers that.

I blame the Internet.

I am with you, brother Van. Can I get an Amen from the folks in the rear pews?

And in which period were civil rights expanding and in which were they shrinking??

An interesting spin on history. For another example of one party control, try the post re-construction South and the Redeemers for a model of the Democratic Party in a one party system.

Your answer, I suppose, depend on which rights you hold most dear. Me, I like privacy and would prefer judges over agents deciding whether to listen in on my home. Even when, like me, you have nothing to hide. (Except some deviant practices that are not anyone's business... and those old Playboys in a box somewhere; they have some good articles.) It's the principle. I suppose some of you prefer to not wear seatbelts and may have a different point of view. (6 feet under??)

We aren't that far apart, though my right to bear arms is near the top of my list, as is my desire for the government in general to leave me the hell alone.

A one-party system in a state with no civil rights is authoritarian. A one-party system in a state with ample civil rights eventually grows into two-party when some divisive issue arises.

And your fantasy is that this is the aim of the GOP? You might find a lot of anti-GOP libertarians who characterize the Democratic party in the same light.

Where ya sit determines what ya see, Van, particularly when you construct a phantasmical bogey man to be a "they" who are the embodiment of all evil. Godwin has many cousins.

Of course, our government is not really a party system at all. (Except maybe VP elections??) The parties are there, of course, but I think Constitution doesn't have them, does it? The parties are politics self-inserting onto the scene.

Indeed, the assumption was that the branches of government would be in conlfict with one another, not parties per se. Note: George Washington was very much against the establishment of political parties, but his utopian view on that seems to run afoul of human nature. People tend to congeal together in political affairs in groups and clumps, as milk does when it goes sour.

The bad time I was referring to was laying the corner block to introduce a new McCarthyism. You are free to hold liberal beliefs, but not if you want to work again. (Ref: K street project.)

McCarthyism

More Godwin relatives come for a visit, how nice.

And nuclear, if done properly, is a viable source for many greens today. But there are many who have not heard that it is possible to make a safe reactor, and others who don't believe it. I am in favor now, though I was opposed for many years.

Been a fan for over thirty years, and I heartily welcome you, brother Van, into the realm of the enlightened. You made my day. :)

Occhi