On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:43:27 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Rex
quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" quickly quoth:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
FINALLY someone who understands the problem
A lot of words and the bottom line is:
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
Looking at the current crop of candidates, we are going to have business as
usual. Everyone has used and abused the earmark business. Change is a word
designed to elict votes.

It sure is when Bama says it. sigh

What we need on the ballot is a checkbox for NOTA. Let's let the
terms of the current crop of *******s expire and -not- replace them.
The country would be better off without a CONgress for awhile, eh?

Except for the absence of checks and balances.
The best situation is a chief executive of one party, and a
congressional majority (in at least House or Senate) of the other party.
...and a conservative Supreme Court

Agreed.


The citizens are safest when government does the least.

Indeed!

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine