The USA needs to take a biggggg bowel movement.

...let's call it "Congress!"

told ya :)

If you need blue-prints of fence that doesn't protect all the border, we could sell you those of Maginot line...

They worked very well as you know...

;-)

There's your AOTW, Denny, the U.S. Congress.

How long is the Rio Grand river ?. Why would you build a wall along a river that wide. We don't need 2000 miles of fence . Only fence enough to cover that portion of the boder that is dry land.

If somehow we could get a law barring any politician from wearing a hair piece or having a transplant then we could get rid of a bunch of them.

Jim, you've completely missed the point. The plan is to build fence only in the urban areas, leaving the rest of the border unprotected. It's idiotic. Also, the Rio Grande isn't much of a deterrent to the illegals. They just put a change of clothes in plastic bags and change as soon as they cross over. That way they don't look as if they've just swum across the border. The reason to build a fence along the river is to stop them from crossing the freakin' river!

It's too expensive to build the whole fence. Of course they could actually MAKE money if they didn't bother with the fence and just sold hunting licenses.

You have as usual made very direct commentary as to the failings of our supposed public servants. The actual fault lies with the apathetic citizenry who are split into four groups. Group 1 comprises about 40% of the potential electorate who opt out of the process by never even registering to vote in the first place. Group 2 is comprised of 1/2 of the remaining 60% who are to lazy to go to the polling booth on election day. group 3 is comprised of 1/2 of those who do vote straight dimocratic due to spurious beliefs that it is a party for working people, the poor, ethnic minorities, etc,etc,etc. the last group #4 is comprised of 1/2 of the actual voters who have taken the time to research the candidates positions, history, what they propose & are likely to do .....then actually go to the polling place & cast an educated vote. This group is not of just a given particular party affiliation but is of a mentality or awareness for civic responsibility. What this means in layman`s terms is for every potential 100 voters , 40 do not even register, only 30 of 60 registered voters actually do so. Out of the 30 only 15 really are informed enough to make an intelligent choice. Politicians long ago understood you do not have to fool all the people all of the time, just some of the people all of the time plus a few . Here in Pennsylvania we had a revolution of sorts in that 14 incumbants who voted themselves illegal pay increases in the State Senate & Legislature were voted out of office. All kinds of congratulations & backslapping & well done commendations were passed around. The actual voter turnout?...............24 PERCENT!!! Remembering that only 60 of each potential 100 voters are even registered, this momentous revolution was accomplished by just 14 or 15 voters of each possible 100. On the face of it though the voter interest was apathetic , the achievement was remarkable. The problem is these 14 incumbants plus a number of others who just quietly fled in the night all will recieve enhanced pension`s from the illegal pay raises even though the pay raises were reversed. Also the electorate will go back to sleep oblivious to civic duty or awareness & the politicians will go back to fleecing the public.We the people hold the actual power to effect change, We the people have chosen to allow others to act in our place, We the people are doomed to suffer the consequences of our apathy & so will our children.

I apologise for the length of my previous post but when I get on a rant ,well I just get with it. Secondly I forgot the most telling statistic........of the 14 or 15 voters who took part the winning vote was about 10 for tossing the incumbents out, 4 or 5 for keeping them. This meant the final deciding tally of voters was only 10 out of a potential 100 or 10% of who were eligible. This was as I said apathetic ....actually quite terrible, but a point to remember is your vote does count & it does not take that many to make things happen.

Imagine the fence/wall we could build if we just charged a toll for the illegals to cross the boarder. lol

One day I was sitting in my boss's office on Lincoln Rd. in Miami Beach, when his secretary advises that Chuck Shumer was on the phone. He told her to tell that pain in the ass he'll call him back Later. I asked him why Chuck was calling him. He said that C.S. calls him periodically to hit him up for money. BTW, my boss is a wealthy big shot developer in Miami Beach.

I thought of that and realised that that is why we have such a split electorate. It is because the RNC and DNC dole out money to WHO THEY want to see in the gummint.

Why is a developer from Miami Beach giving money to New York's Chuck Shumer? So Shumer can return the gesture by calling some gummint a-hole in Miami to help out the developer when needed. My boss joked and said he gives money to both sides, he just needs a favor every now and again.

I believe I have a solution to having our "public servants" serve our interests as opposed to the "games" they play to "help" each other out.

Simple, always start with the most remarkable document ever "given" to mankind..........The Constitution of the United States.

If you read how that document sets up our gummint, you'll immediately recognise that the intent is to have "the people" be "represented" so that the actions of the gummint reflect the wants "of the people." (with me so far, they don't teach this in school).
That doesn't happen when anyone, including foreign gummints are "allowed" to contribute funds to a canidate's campaign. Really outrageous and "Un-fucking-condtitutional".

Therefore, what you need to have as campaign laws are laws that reflect the intent of the Constitution.

---- The only person that can contribute to the campaign of an elected official from a state is---real tricky---"a proven resident of that state". You have lived in Georgia for a year, are a resident, you can contribute to the campaigner of your choice for house or senate. There should be limits to how much, say, $2000 per official. Imagine? The people running in your state whose ideas are the most popular would receive the most money (maybe) for the most advertising and hence the position. The people they would cater to (as in represent) are the ones who gave them money, i.e., the people from their state AND THEIR STATE ALONE!
(tweaking--they should not be allowed to know who donated what amount).

Imagine, no more DNC, RNC, money spent hitting up people for money, etc.

Right now there are so many Senators and Congressmen in positions today who would not have a chance in hell of being elected.

Two problems with this? In thinking it through the people in position of power now, who realize they would lose their position will never let a law of this type through. That's probably about 60% of today's politicians. The second problem; they would never write a law like this.

Solution: The "people" have write the law. Grass roots (internet) have to get it passed.

The only reason I contribute to campaigns now is to make sure the "other" asshole doesn't win (Kerry for example). That doesn't mean I'm happy with the present asshole in office. I would love to be able to contribute to someone who I feel had points of view, values and intentions similar to mind. Properly written, a law like this would at least be better that what we have now.

Now I read that the Senate has voted to allow Illegal aliens to collect social security even though they used forged or faked documents to gain employment. I think it only fair that the US flag be removed from the Senate chamber and the Mexican flag be displayed instead. That body is sure as Hell not doing the American peoples business. Mark my words, if this keeps up Spanish will be the the official laungauge of this country within the next 50 years.

Need to clarify (tweak):

Senator campaigners can receive campaign money from "residents only" that live in the STATE they are to represent.

Congressmen campaigners can receive campaign money from "residents only" that live in the DISTRICT they are to represent.

Need to set up a website called, "ofthepeopleby thepeopleandforthepeople.org" where the basics of the law (draft)are layed out and people from around the country can contribute ideas. Kind of similar to what our Congress is SUPPOSED to do when writing a law.

That doesn't mean I'm happy with the present asshole in office.

Not too long ago that comment would have pissed me off...since my fall off the Bush Band Wagon, I've come to my senses.

I agree with you ... still better than Kerry.

Jim - Why do you think Mexicans are nicknamed wetbacks? It's because many of them swam over the Rio Grande.

Gringo Beal, I'll suggest yet another refinement (tweak).

Candidates in a given election can receive funds only from those elegible to *vote* for that particular candidate.

That effectively eliminates donations from corporations, organizations, foreigners etc. Effectively, all contributions would have to come from individual voters within that particular state, district, county, borough etc.

Roy, you are correct. It would eliminate the potential for fraud. "Others" donating through another person. Plus it might actually cause more interest by unregistered people. They might actually register in order to participate.

Actually, I think the reason many people to not contribute to the electorial process is because they feel apathy towards what their vote can accomplish. This idea is another way to have people see and realize that their participation would matter.

You have to think about and appreciate the potential changes this would have throughout the entire workings of our goverment, including the impact it would have on how the MSM press presently operates.

That's another topic because if we had any backbone in our government today the press would be dismantled under conspiracy and monopoly laws.

Do you believe how much power one man like Rupert Murdoch has? So much control of information and thought...........

Of course Bush was against breaking up the monopoly of todays press.

This kind of issue would also be addressed if we had more direct representation. Many more "real" issues would be addressed if we had a true participitory government.