wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:11:00 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

Who, do you propose, would fill his place?

Simple answer, the person that is doing all the work now. The people that
are actually making things work despite the elected officials desires.
Except now he makes the decisions of what needs to be done instead of
carrying out orders form a politician. He does so until some one is
elected.

So you want a lifetime bureaucrat making the laws as well as enforcing
them?
Silly.

You might think so until you realize the systems that actually work and
please the most people are actually run that way.


I don't have all the answers and there are probably better solutions but
the
system is compromised and will never work for the people as a whole.

The system of voting is not what's broken.

...and forcing people to do *anything* is NOT a solution. If they're too
lazy
to vote, personally, I don't want them to. ...and "early voting" just
simplifies fraud.

Too lazy to vote. LOL... What effort does it take that you would think it
is hard? I am simply not going to vote for the sake of voting.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:08:50 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:11:00 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
...

Who, do you propose, would fill his place?

Simple answer, the person that is doing all the work now. The people that
are actually making things work despite the elected officials desires.
Except now he makes the decisions of what needs to be done instead of
carrying out orders form a politician. He does so until some one is
elected.

So you want a lifetime bureaucrat making the laws as well as enforcing
them?
Silly.

You might think so until you realize the systems that actually work and
please the most people are actually run that way.

Name one.

I don't have all the answers and there are probably better solutions but
the
system is compromised and will never work for the people as a whole.

The system of voting is not what's broken.

...and forcing people to do *anything* is NOT a solution. If they're too
lazy
to vote, personally, I don't want them to. ...and "early voting" just
simplifies fraud.

Too lazy to vote. LOL... What effort does it take that you would think it
is hard? I am simply not going to vote for the sake of voting.

Voting isn't hard but plenty can't be bothered. KNOWING who to vote for is a
lot harder. If the lazy bums can't be bothered to vote they're certainly not
going to bother to figure out who to vote for. That's exactly how we get
government by sound bite. It's why politicians promise "free" stuff. ...and
you want more of it.

J. Clarke wrote:


A big problem with the current system is that nobody alive today had
any real say in its creation, we inherited it and nobody ever asked
us if we were cool with continuing it.

I'm not sure that defines it as a problem.

--

-Mike-

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Redistricting should be interesting here in California this time
around.

The voters voted in a new way of redistricting, a panel of private
citizens, not the elected politicians, get to establish the districts.

Since California will get some new seats in the house of
representatives due to population shifts, should be interesting now
that gerrymandering has less of a roll in the process.

Stay tuned...............

It will be interesting - but only if the panel of private citizens is
selected by some means other than appointment, or some other politically
related process. Otherwise - business as usual.

--

-Mike-

On 11/26/2010 8:18 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Lobby wrote in news:icnaua$7u5$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

And 50+% of the total number of voters to win. None of this 47 to 33 and
some leftovers and 47 wins.

How about needing more than 1/3 of the total number of eligible voters?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Totally agree but I would like to see 50%. Seems the candidates don't
recognise the fact that no shows are actually saying "no" to all involved.
But then the politicians don't want that fact to come out in the open.


Not a valid assumption. A failure to vote could mean "Any of the
candidates are fine by me." OR it could mean "I'm just not interested
in politics." OR it could mean "I abstain because I don't know enough
to cast an intelligent vote."

On 11/26/2010 7:53 PM, Leon wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
In ,
wrote:
...snipped...
You have 3 choices, play the game you cannot win, play the game and loose,
or don't play the game.


I'm wondering, what is the difference between the 1st& 2nd choice there?

You see the point! Voting for either is a loosing proposition if you don't
like either candidate.


Which is precisely why the ballot should have "None Of The Above" as a
choice.

In article ,
says...

On 11/26/2010 8:18 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Lobby wrote in news:icnaua$7u5$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

And 50+% of the total number of voters to win. None of this 47 to 33 and
some leftovers and 47 wins.

How about needing more than 1/3 of the total number of eligible voters?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Totally agree but I would like to see 50%. Seems the candidates don't
recognise the fact that no shows are actually saying "no" to all involved.
But then the politicians don't want that fact to come out in the open.


Not a valid assumption. A failure to vote could mean "Any of the
candidates are fine by me." OR it could mean "I'm just not interested
in politics." OR it could mean "I abstain because I don't know enough
to cast an intelligent vote."

I'd like to see "shoot 'em all" on the ballot as an option. Possibly
"horsewhip 'em all" as well. Be interesting to see what that did for
voter turnout.

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:
On 11/26/2010 7:53 PM, Leon wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
In ,
wrote:
...snipped...
You have 3 choices, play the game you cannot win, play the game and loose,
or don't play the game.


I'm wondering, what is the difference between the 1st& 2nd choice there?

You see the point! Voting for either is a loosing proposition if you don't
like either candidate.


Which is precisely why the ballot should have "None Of The Above" as a
choice.

Actually, I'm kind of liking the loose and loosing proposition part more
and more...


--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

Leon wrote:



I think +50% of "Eligible" voters to win. If not enough voters show
up the election is not counted and the person in office steps aside.

Most election laws provide that a person remains in office until "his
successor be qualified." This means that when no election is held, or no one
wins, or an ineligible candidate prevails, the current office holder
continues in office.

There have been more than a few instances in which a dead person was
elected, so the situation is not that unusual.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:53:58 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Josepi wrote:
...snipped...
You have 3 choices, play the game you cannot win, play the game and loose,
or don't play the game.


I'm wondering, what is the difference between the 1st & 2nd choice there?

You see the point! Voting for either is a loosing proposition if you don't
like either candidate.

Not true, Leon. Voting for the candidate which most closely
represents your own views is the first step into turning that guy into
the candidate you want (by popular demand), and changing the system to
match (something we need DESPERATELY right now in this country.)

Don't be so damned defeatist. MAKE change happen, and I don't mean
that in the Obamunist way. It's up to us voters to make the gov't we
want and need.

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:09:27 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:


A big problem with the current system is that nobody alive today had
any real say in its creation, we inherited it and nobody ever asked
us if we were cool with continuing it.

I'm not sure that defines it as a problem.

I'm with you, Mike. I don't think there's a politician allive who had
the intelligence, foresight, determination, call of duty, self-
lessness, or moral ethics of our forefathers. And, unfortunately, I
don't expect to ever see that from a politician in my lifetime.

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On 11/27/2010 7:50 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Don't be so damned defeatist. MAKE change happen, and I don't mean
that in the Obamunist way. It's up to us voters to make the gov't we
want and need.

Driven on an urban freeway lately?

Are those scofflaw idiots the kind of "voters" you want to "make the
gov't we want and need"??

Arguably the same that got us into this mess ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Nov 27, 8:50*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:53:58 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:



"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Josepi wrote:
...snipped...
You have 3 choices, play the game you cannot win, play the game and loose,
or don't play the game.

I'm wondering, what is the difference between the 1st & 2nd choice there?

You see the point! * Voting for either is a loosing proposition if you don't
like either candidate.

Not true, Leon. *Voting for the candidate which most closely
represents your own views is the first step into turning that guy into
the candidate you want (by popular demand), and changing the system to
match (something we need DESPERATELY right now in this country.)

Don't be so damned defeatist. *MAKE change happen, and I don't mean
that in the Obamunist way. *It's up to us voters to make the gov't we
want and need.

So.... who has been electing this last batch of assholes?

Swingman wrote in news:bI-
:

On 11/26/2010 5:16 PM, Han wrote:

That being said, the current system is constantly being revised
(redistricting), and the elcting systems for at least US Senate and
President has definitely changed (at least administratively).

Do not expect rational processes from an essentially dumbed down,
ignorant electorate.

Amen!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 05:57:03 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm with you, Mike. I don't think there's a politician allive who had
the intelligence, foresight, determination, call of duty, self-
lessness, or moral ethics of our forefathers. And, unfortunately, I
don't expect to ever see that from a politician in my lifetime.

There's something in what you say, but remember that politicians back
then didn't have mass media and modern marketing techniques. Who knows
how they would have behaved with those tools.

And some of our history is legend. All countries have them and they may
or may not have much of a basis in fact. For example, Washington may not
have wanted to be king, but he supported Adams who wrote the quote below.
And moral ethics? Check out Ben Franklin in France :-). Always remember
that the winners write the history books.

€œDemocracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or
monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not
commit suicide.€� John Adams





--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 06:05:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

I'd like to see "shoot 'em all" on the ballot as an option. Possibly
"horsewhip 'em all" as well. Be interesting to see what that did for
voter turnout.

I'd settle for "none of the above".

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

I much prefer the "tight" ones.


"Larry W" wrote in message
...
Actually, I'm kind of liking the loose and loosing proposition part more
and more...


--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

I much prefer the "tight" ones.


"Larry W" wrote in message
...
Actually, I'm kind of liking the loose and loosing proposition part more
and more...


--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

I much prefer the "tight" ones.


"Larry W" wrote in message
...
Actually, I'm kind of liking the loose and loosing proposition part more
and more...


--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

The change will only be a loonie or toonie.

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message

I voted for Rob Ford for Mayor, and little brother Doug for counselor.
They are both honest and good fiscal conservatives with real business
experience, not to mention real nice people.
Not sure where you are in Canada, but there is change coming here, I'll
bet my boots on it.


september.org...
On 11/26/10 1:39 PM, Josepi wrote:
Silly argument.

OK next time I will flip a coin and vote for the horse's ass that it falls
on.

I can still bitch because the idiot system allows the BS to still happen
no
matter who I vote for. I played their game and voted religiously (there's
the problem) for 35 years and it got me jerks that I voted for and jerks
that I opposed. They have no responsibilty once they get voted in and they
have no knowledge of affairs (except Clinton) before they get voted in.

The change will only be a loonie or toonie.

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message

I voted for Rob Ford for Mayor, and little brother Doug for counselor.
They are both honest and good fiscal conservatives with real business
experience, not to mention real nice people.
Not sure where you are in Canada, but there is change coming here, I'll
bet my boots on it.


september.org...
On 11/26/10 1:39 PM, Josepi wrote:
Silly argument.

OK next time I will flip a coin and vote for the horse's ass that it falls
on.

I can still bitch because the idiot system allows the BS to still happen
no
matter who I vote for. I played their game and voted religiously (there's
the problem) for 35 years and it got me jerks that I voted for and jerks
that I opposed. They have no responsibilty once they get voted in and they
have no knowledge of affairs (except Clinton) before they get voted in.

The change will only be a loonie or toonie.

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message

I voted for Rob Ford for Mayor, and little brother Doug for counselor.
They are both honest and good fiscal conservatives with real business
experience, not to mention real nice people.
Not sure where you are in Canada, but there is change coming here, I'll
bet my boots on it.


september.org...
On 11/26/10 1:39 PM, Josepi wrote:
Silly argument.

OK next time I will flip a coin and vote for the horse's ass that it falls
on.

I can still bitch because the idiot system allows the BS to still happen
no
matter who I vote for. I played their game and voted religiously (there's
the problem) for 35 years and it got me jerks that I voted for and jerks
that I opposed. They have no responsibilty once they get voted in and they
have no knowledge of affairs (except Clinton) before they get voted in.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:10:07 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 11/27/2010 7:50 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Don't be so damned defeatist. MAKE change happen, and I don't mean
that in the Obamunist way. It's up to us voters to make the gov't we
want and need.

Driven on an urban freeway lately?

Once annually, if I'm lucky. I make the trek to the Bay Area of CA.


Are those scofflaw idiots the kind of "voters" you want to "make the
gov't we want and need"??

Why are they scofflaws? Speeding, tailgating, or felony phone use?


Arguably the same that got us into this mess ...

Um, so who do -you- want to vote for us, Swingy?

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 07:31:52 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Nov 27, 8:50*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:53:58 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:



"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Josepi wrote:
...snipped...
You have 3 choices, play the game you cannot win, play the game and loose,
or don't play the game.

I'm wondering, what is the difference between the 1st & 2nd choice there?

You see the point! * Voting for either is a loosing proposition if you don't
like either candidate.

Not true, Leon. *Voting for the candidate which most closely
represents your own views is the first step into turning that guy into
the candidate you want (by popular demand), and changing the system to
match (something we need DESPERATELY right now in this country.)

Don't be so damned defeatist. *MAKE change happen, and I don't mean
that in the Obamunist way. *It's up to us voters to make the gov't we
want and need.

So.... who has been electing this last batch of assholes?

Too many Democrats.

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:17:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 05:57:03 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm with you, Mike. I don't think there's a politician allive who had
the intelligence, foresight, determination, call of duty, self-
lessness, or moral ethics of our forefathers. And, unfortunately, I
don't expect to ever see that from a politician in my lifetime.

There's something in what you say, but remember that politicians back
then didn't have mass media and modern marketing techniques. Who knows
how they would have behaved with those tools.

What does mass media have to do with intelligence and ethics?


And some of our history is legend. All countries have them and they may
or may not have much of a basis in fact. For example, Washington may not
have wanted to be king, but he supported Adams who wrote the quote below.
And moral ethics? Check out Ben Franklin in France :-). Always remember
that the winners write the history books.

Pick one: morals or ethics. Yeah, Ben was a horndog. What of it? I
didn't dislike Clinton for his sexual antics. I discredited him for
lying about it to the American people, under sworn honesty in court.


“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or
monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not
commit suicide.” John Adams

I like Jefferson's Tree of Liberty speech better, and I'm fairly
certain that it's time again to water it. Got supplies, folks?

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On Nov 26, 2:04*pm, FrozenNorth
wrote:
On 11/26/10 1:39 PM, Josepi wrote: Silly argument.

OK next time I will flip a coin and vote for the horse's ass that it falls
on.

I can still bitch because the idiot system allows the BS to still happen no
matter who I vote for. I played their game and voted religiously (there's
the problem) for 35 years and it got me jerks that I voted for and jerks
that I opposed. They have no responsibilty once they get voted in and they
have no knowledge of affairs (except Clinton) before they get voted in.

I voted for Rob Ford for Mayor, and little brother Doug for counselor.
They are both honest and good fiscal conservatives with real business
experience, not to mention real nice people.
Not sure where you are in Canada, but there is change coming here, I'll
bet my boots on it.

--
Froz...

The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

I lived in TO for 16+ years and I would have voted for Ford...so he
got himself into a bit of pickle have had a few too many in
Flawrida...shiat man, who hasn't?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:18:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 06:05:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

I'd like to see "shoot 'em all" on the ballot as an option. Possibly
"horsewhip 'em all" as well. Be interesting to see what that did for
voter turnout.

It would probably net the closest to 100% turnout in history.
I -like- it! evil grinne


I'd settle for "none of the above".

How about electing 1 person from each 1,000 seen in Google Earth's
photos? I'm sure anyone, from a homeless beggar on the streets to a
CEO of a corporation, could do better than the fecal material we have
representing us in CONgress today, though today is better than last
month.

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On Nov 27, 4:21*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Pick one: morals or ethics. *Yeah, Ben was a horndog. What of it? *I
didn't dislike Clinton for his sexual antics. I discredited him for
lying about it to the American people, under sworn honesty in court.


....yea...yabbut...put yourself in his shoes. In his mind, all he could
see was Hillary, hand on ample hip, with a scowl looking at him, foot
tapping, mouthing the words: "go ahead, scumbag, tell the truth and
I'll make your life hell...". Bill was more afraid of her than any
impeachment threat; of course he lied. How hard is that for a
politician to do? Of course the pursuit of impeachment by the
republicans was an honourable and ethical thing to do, after all, none
of them ever had their dicks done by anybody besides their wives.

"Lying to the American people"... Good thing Bush never did that....
and yes, he was under oath too...the oath of office. They're all liars.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:08:50 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:11:00 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

Who, do you propose, would fill his place?

Simple answer, the person that is doing all the work now. The people
that
are actually making things work despite the elected officials desires.
Except now he makes the decisions of what needs to be done instead of
carrying out orders form a politician. He does so until some one is
elected.

So you want a lifetime bureaucrat making the laws as well as enforcing
them?
Silly.

You might think so until you realize the systems that actually work and
please the most people are actually run that way.

Name one.

I cannot divulge that information, there is a personal risk involved and we
are talking politics. Hope you understand.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:26:49 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:18:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 06:05:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

I'd like to see "shoot 'em all" on the ballot as an option. Possibly
"horsewhip 'em all" as well. Be interesting to see what that did for
voter turnout.

It would probably net the closest to 100% turnout in history.
I -like- it! evil grinne


I'd settle for "none of the above".

How about electing 1 person from each 1,000 seen in Google Earth's
photos? I'm sure anyone, from a homeless beggar on the streets to a
CEO of a corporation, could do better than the fecal material we have
representing us in CONgress today, though today is better than last
month.

Um, today's bunch is the SAME bunch as last month. The new guys don't start
for another five weeks, or so. ;-)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:08:33 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:08:50 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:11:00 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...

Who, do you propose, would fill his place?

Simple answer, the person that is doing all the work now. The people
that
are actually making things work despite the elected officials desires.
Except now he makes the decisions of what needs to be done instead of
carrying out orders form a politician. He does so until some one is
elected.

So you want a lifetime bureaucrat making the laws as well as enforcing
them?
Silly.

You might think so until you realize the systems that actually work and
please the most people are actually run that way.

Name one.

I cannot divulge that information, there is a personal risk involved and we
are talking politics. Hope you understand.

;-)

"Leon" wrote:

And what in the last 50 years has that acomplished?

Surely you jest.

We continue to get candidates that are taking us down the wrong
path.

Define what in your opinion defines "wrong path."

You have to step back and look at the big picture and determine what
is really wrong with the system.

Other than Reagan's screwing of the middle class, what else is wrong?

Simply complaining has not helped as far back as I remember.

No, you have to something in addition to just bitching.

I absolutely think that every one should vote and I also believe
that they should only vote if there is some one that they want to
elect.

OK, it is also your obligation to insure you get candidates who
represent the majority of your views for which you can vote.

And I believe that if the majority of eligible voters don't vote for
any one in particular no candidate shoud win.

That's a crap out on your part, an excuse for not getting involved..

The simple solution would be change the requirements to win.

Not really, that's just a crap out.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

Oh, I agree. More involvement is a good thing. but there are people
who carry the banner of "VOTE!! CHANGE!!"...and all *I* want to know
who has been voting these losers into power all along?

...nothing personal, you understand..
----------------------
Guess it depends on your definition of "loser".

IMHO, a whole bunch of losers are headed to DC this term.

Looks like lots of grid lock for the next 2 years.

Lew

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:21:32 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

There's something in what you say, but remember that politicians back
then didn't have mass media and modern marketing techniques. Who knows
how they would have behaved with those tools.

What does mass media have to do with intelligence and ethics?

Less temptation to mislead the voters :-).



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

In article 1244ce9a-ed56-40e0-9865-
,
says...


It would appear that -all- our elected officials all wanton criminals,
wouldn't it?


Corruption and greed know no partisan affiliations. Neither does
stupidity.

....and it crosses all national boundaries.

In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...


How about needing more than 1/3 of the total number of eligible voters?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Totally agree but I would like to see 50%. Seems the candidates don't
recognise the fact that no shows are actually saying "no" to all involved.

....but the effect is one of saying yes to the worst of a bad lot.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:42:43 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote:

Oh, I agree. More involvement is a good thing. but there are people
who carry the banner of "VOTE!! CHANGE!!"...and all *I* want to know
who has been voting these losers into power all along?

..nothing personal, you understand..
----------------------
Guess it depends on your definition of "loser".

IMHO, a whole bunch of losers are headed to DC this term.

At least 525 by my count.


Looks like lots of grid lock for the next 2 years.

That will certainly hold our costs down. And if the Reps actually
knock off the Full Pork Lane, it'll be a considerable amount to reduce
the deficit. Now all we have to work on are the gazillions of debt.

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:59:09 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:21:32 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

There's something in what you say, but remember that politicians back
then didn't have mass media and modern marketing techniques. Who knows
how they would have behaved with those tools.

What does mass media have to do with intelligence and ethics?

Less temptation to mislead the voters :-).

That shouldn't be a problem for an intelligent and ethical person.

--
Education should provide the tools for a widening and deepening
of life, for increased appreciation of all one sees or experiences.
It should equip a person to live life well, to understand what is
happening around him, for to live life well one must live life with
awareness. -- Louis L'Amour

On 11/27/2010 5:39 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

And what in the last 50 years has that acomplished?

Surely you jest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Tom "The Hammer" Delay was finally found guilty today in a Texas court
of law today of money laundering ($190K) committed in 2002.

Sometimes the wheels of justice grind slow, but they also grind fine.



A bit of history here. In 2001 the Texas House consisted of 78 Democrats and
72 Republicans, and Congressional House seats were 17-15 in favor of the
Democrats.

DeLay (and others) set out to elect more Republicans to the Texas House so
that they could redistrict the Congressional seats more to the benefit of
the Republicans.

Sure enough, the 2002 elections resulted in a Republican majority in the
Texas House. The state legislature then redistricted the Congressional seats
in time for the 2006 elections. The result of this is that the Texas
congressional delegation in January will consist of 9 Democrats and 23
Republicans. a shift of eight seats from Democrats to the GOP.

Amongst the machinations (and court challenges) involved in this effort was
$190,000 raised by the DeLay group to assist Republican Texas House
candidates. Prohibited by law, DeLay's group could not give the money they
raised directly to the Republican candidates, but the Republican National
Committee could. So DeLay's group donated the money they raised to the RNC
and the RNC turned around and gave the money to the Texas Republican
Committee (TRC), who, in turn, disbursed it to the candidates.

It was this hop DeLay-RNC-TRC-candidates that got DeLay charged, and
subsequently convicted, of money laundering.