On 21 Nov 2011 23:00:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
ain.local:

I'd be fine with the money in politics as long as we knew who was
paying, how much they were paying, and what safeguards were in place to
ensure that the politician in question stayed bought.

That would be an alternative to prohibiting corporations and perhaps also
unions from trying to influence elections.

I suggest you get the part of last Sunday's (11/20/11) 60 minutes "show"
where someone named Grover Nyquist proudly proclaimed how he had 290 or
so legislators by the short hairs to stay in line with their signed
pledge to never raise taxes or reduce benefits or credits. He also plain
refused to say who pays into his 501c3 (I think) non-profit so he can
campaign for everyone who toes the line, and against any and everyone who
doesn't. I admit I am paraphrasing, but challenge anyone to provide
evidence he didn't mean exactly that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

He has them by the "short hairs" because of the "read my lips" debacle.
Rightfully so! Nothing illegal or immoral here.

In my opinion, it should be illegal for anyone in government or
legislature to receive payments for what they do or did in "public
service", while in office or for 10 years thereafter. That includes
trading in non-public information in any way shape or form.
Exact amounts and dates of trades in securities need to be disclosed as
well.

It's called "slavery".

I know I'm ****ing to windward ...

More like your pants, again.