"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:08:35 -0500, DSK wrote:

Look at the next part of the equation... who hands out lots & lots of
money to politicians? Mom-n-Pop stores? No. Businessmen who can
profitably
make goods & services without gov't intervention or plum cost-plus
contracts? No again.


thunder wrote:
I've said it before, but I think the incestuous relationship between
corporate welfare, in it's various guises, and campaign finance is the
biggest threat we have to this democracy. This Abramoff mess is just
one
example. You have to wonder who the politicos are working for.

No, you don't wonder at all, if you pay attention.

Eisenhower warned us about this. Maybe we should be grateful
that the 'dictatorship of the corporate interests' has held
off as long as it did. Meanwhile, voters are about the least
important concerns in Washington- 3 election cycles now have
proved that voters are stupid, have no memory at all, and
can be easily shilled into impoverishing & imprisoning
themselves.

i dont agree with that at all. the problem is that neither party is
presenting anything other than protective coloration for themselves
and their personal interests as individual politicians. its all about
them.

there is nothing wrong with a two party democracy, but the opposition
has to present a strong case, real alternatives and not more of the
same retorhic which plays to only a small part of their base. the
democrats are vapid and only interested in grandstanding.

the only solution is term limits - so dumbass fat slobs like ted
kennedy or dumasses like trent lott get the boot after two terms.

A better solution would be a return to the original set up of the
constitution, where the senate is not elected, but rather appointed by
the states. That would return the senate to be the representatives of the
state, and the house as representatives of the people. An important check
and balance that has been lost.