History of the USA government:
USA government:
Once upon the time, there was a group of rational thinkers who came together and composed a well through and through form of government. These men were well educated and schooled in many different structures of many ancient governments that were written about. So these men brought together all the good ideas and created a REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, with Checks and Balances written into a CONSTITUTION. These men also knew of the dangers and destructive characters of a bad government with corrupted men in power: these men worked very diligently and wanted the representatives to swear an oath to protect the CONSTITUTION.

Around the year 2000, this government was getting restless. The good people of this country had finally had 8 years semblance of peace and prosperity. This was after 12 years of destruction. Nevertheless, those who were ruling the people wanted increasingly more power. They no longer wanted to swear allegiance to protect the CONSTITUTION. They decided to swear allegiance to One Man.

There was a group of ‘malevolent’ people who wanted to take over the country. They lied, cheated, threatened and scared the good people into voting for them. They won. The elected representatives swore allegiance to the One Man

Destruction of that country started before the victorious group was sworn in to safe guard and uphold the laws of their CONSTITUTION. The destruction began.

The elected representatives gave up their duty to declare war to the Man and the abandoned the people who elected them, for got the laws of the CONSTITUTION, and acted very foolish.

Today, in the year 2005, the good people have no representatives willing to acknowledge the CONSTITUTION

Wot u talkin 'bout?

Didn't you see Rep DeLouse waving that docment around like so much TP?

Tommie's private stock

Thanks... I needed that laugh!!! :

Glad to be of service

For the people who have such fear in their lives that, they can not make their own choices in their lives.

Stay out of mine.
I do not want this government to:
Rape our land
Pollute our skies
Be the big bully on the playing ground
Be a thief

Have the government control our lives, now the government can and will control our death.

No.

We'll stop 'em.

Just like our grandparents stopped them.



We do not have the editor of the Chicago Tribune on our side. But we will find other ways. This I know.



We've all been 'there.' These zealots have not.

Good grief.
Outa town for a flower child rally and now ya got arms of steel.

And you have feet of clay.

and a silver tongue ... pointed and full of venom

Insulting our "guest?"

what a monster I am

Bub will forgive you.

I had no idea.

OHHHH MYYYY GODDDDDDD!!!!!!

It's a greater orange African snub-nosed anteater!!!

grrrrrrrrrr-night all...

Pwezent Scweemz

I am stealing this for awhile...

I'm laffin' at every pecan in this nuthouse.

first draft:

March 22, 2005

Dear Mr. President et al

With the growing interest in furthering the advancements in abducting the savings plan, a.k.a. Social Security, and what health plans, a.k.a. Medicare and Medicaid, set forth by law for the purpose and benefit of the people of the USA

Providing that we the people meeting the requirements for residence born, educated and worked for businesses in the US territories and required to abide under the rule of laws as set forth in the Constitution and providing that your Group Wishing that we will now need to take and make choices for our old age and medical expenses as sent forth with the wishes of your Group.

May it please you and your Group to enlighten us as to which companies or group plan or family destination plans that you have that you may live your days in murky magnificence and magnitude.

Providing that your wishes are also for the general good and wellbeing of the people of the USA, we request that we may also benefit from your current stock picks and investments.

Chivalrously presented on behalf of the People who pay your wages.

Do share your responses to that most interesting little missive as they come, csh.

Ok….. what about congress writing a law allowing….

a man who is no longer happy with his wife be granted the right to bring her back to her father and mother without any obligation for continuing support for her.

Without any legally binding financial responsibility to her.

Wha if the wife is supporting the husband? Can she bring him back to his parents?

ROFL. Finally an honest comment by the beebers.

That's fair enough, of course. Let's just use 'spouse', instead.

The question still applies, though. The whole point, the characteristic difference of our kinship structure is the 'emancipation' (physical, moral, social, economic, legal) of the conjugal-couple-centered effective family unit from both families of origin/orientation. It is that characteristic that makes our 'normative' family form partly, at least, functionally integrated with our individualistic and achievement-oriented culture, and our market-integrated, geographical and social mobility demanding, economy. Not to mention the 'romantic love ideal' as a, if not the, normative basis of spouse-selection.

Of course, women can send the man back.
We can work this law out in a bi-partisan manner!

Send the man back to whom? His house with the furnishings he provided?

Take another step…
A Father and Mother has a child who decides to go to prison…..
They can pay for that offspring’s room and board…

P.S. Chose your partner carefully.

Fair enough. You got my vote.

{{shaking head}} You are such a throwback. Repeat {{head shakes}}.

Man you got a lot in there.

To which I say, yup. 'S'how it is.

Even in todays age, what I said represents the norm.

I could not disagree more.

How can it be viewed any other way, what with women earning a mere percentage what men do?

How about~Looks incredible in a tight cardigan sweater?

In any case, neither spouse, in our system, has the right to send the other spouse to his/her parents or anywhere else and cease contributing to their joint economic welfare while the marriage is still valid.

Do you have pictures or are you going from memory, brother?

Both, I'm afraid....

<sigh>

What did P.T. Barnum say?

Something about er pacifiers or lollipops?

Number is going up.

Women must just have to work a bit longer and harder than men, I guess.

I guess. That is certainly what that little factoid indicates.

Watch for the elephantshit? You could lose a shoe.

What did the elephants hit?

Did I just step in it?

I thought I smelled something.

Oopsie.

Molly Ivins


RELEASE: THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005, AND THEREAFTER



AUSTIN, Texas -- The John Wesley Hardin Died for You Society has a theme song that goes: "He wasn't really bad. He was just a victim of his times." I sometimes find this useful in trying to explain Texas political ethics to outsiders.

My theory is that few Texas pols are actual crooks, they just have an overdeveloped sense of the extenuating circumstance. Woodrow Wilson Bean once warned himself that he was skatin' close to the thin edge of ethics. After a moment, he concluded, "Woodrow Wilson Bean, ethics is for young lawyers."

We had a governor who was caught in a big, fat lie about a football scandal (serious stuff) and explained, "Well, there never was a Bible in the room."

Some civilians believe the definition of an honest Texas pol is one who stays bought. But among pols of the old school, the saying was, "If you can't take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in the Legislature." Many of our pols have the ethical sensitivity of a walnut. All this has led many to conclude erroneously that Tom DeLay, an alumnus of the Texas Legislature, is somehow our fault.

I grant you a certain resemblance to some of our more notorious standards: "Everybody does it" and "They did it first" are actually considered excuses here. But I categorically reject cultural responsibility for Tom DeLay. Real Texas politicians are neither hypocritical nor sanctimonious. A pol does what he must -- fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly -- but no pol of the Old School, when DeLay served in the Lege, would add self-righteousness to shady dealing.

Nor was hyper-partisanship practiced. Under Bill Hobby, Bob Bullock and Pete Laney, Republicans were given their fair share of power. In fact, Republicans and liberals sometimes joined forces against conservative Democrats.

This was before the time when religion was regularly dragged into politics. The idea that you were immune from ethical lapses because you had found Jesus did not fly here. Sanctimony stinks in the nostrils of the Lord.

Doing favors for big campaign donors may indeed be an "everybody does it," but when those favors take the form of laws that directly hurt your people, you're supposed to draw the line. Over the line is where Texas pols would put using a children's charity as a cover for collecting soft money from special interest groups and then spending it on dinners, a golf tournament, a rock concert, Broadway tickets and so forth. Because the money was supposedly for a charity, Celebrations for Children, Inc., special interests who wanted favors from DeLay were able to give him money without revealing themselves as campaign donors. Cute trick, Tom, but a really cruddy thing to do.

Christians, defend this please.

In another example of ethical rot, DeLay took a $100,000 check from the Corrections Corporation of America, a company that runs private prisons in Texas and has a 20-year history that includes mismanagement and abuse. CCA wants the Texas Lege, over which DeLay exercises considerable sway because he's a money conduit, to privatize the prisons. And that check? Made out to DeLay's children's charity, the DeLay Foundation for Kids. Barf.


75% of the money goes to the kids 25% to the Republican party. Donations are even tax deductable. This scum uses abused children to hide Republican political donations. A fine Christian man of faith. Christians, defend this please.


Another quality that makes DeLay an un-Texas pol is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the Lege, it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior -- punishing pols for partisan reasons -- was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated.

Some of the ethics charges against DeLay are just plain old-fashioned grubby -- letting a lobbyist pay for a fancy hotel in London and a golf trip to St. Andrews (Delay claims he didn't know it was lobby money, even though he was accompanied by the lobbyist). What sets DeLay apart is his response when his shoddy behavior is exposed.

He has been admonished three times by the House Ethics Committee, so did he clean up his act? Nope, he went after the chairman of the ethics committee, threw him out, got the rules changed and then stacked the committee with his close allies. "The ethics process in the House of Representatives is in total shambles," said Fred Wertheimer, a longtime D.C. crusader on ethical issues.

Tell us more about Jesus, you lowlife scum sucking vermin.

I haven't even mentioned DeLay's apparent violation of Texas campaign finance law, quite a feat, since we only have the one. Or the whole nasty and absurd redistricting mess, or the dubious donations to his legal defense fund, or the Indian casino gambling saga, or, or, or.

The Houston Chronicle, DeLay's home paper, has been vigilant about tracking his lapses. The paper recently summed up his m.o.: "When in danger of losing, simply rewrite the rules in the middle of the game to make it impossible for the other side to win."

This guy smells like a slop jar. Get him out of there.


http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv