Well, I am part of this voting block. I have voted in every Presidential election since I was eligible (1972). That being said, if it is Guiliani versus Hillary, I will sit it out, as I postulate many such evangelicals will. This will, of course, only help Hillary, but such is Life sometimes. I simply cannot sell out my values. Give me a socially conservative Democrat, though...(but then again, isn't that an endangered species these days?)
I have never written in a canadate , I wonder if next year would be a good first time?
As another member of said voting block, given the choice between the 2, and acknowledging just how important it is in dealing with the current global conflicts, with Islamofascist terrorism right near the top, it's no problem for me to pull Rudy's lever. I'm not expecting the coming of Reagain II, but I'm hell not going to sit out and allow Clinton II in.
I'd vote for Clinton II before I'd vote for Rudy.
I'd vote for Clinton II before I'd vote for Rudy.
Don't vote for either one. Vote for Ron Paul.
To what end, UP?
I'd vote for Clinton II before I'd vote for Rudy.
Don't vote for either one. Vote for Ron Paul.
QuoteDon't vote for either one. Vote for Ron Paul.
To what end, UP?
So you can sleep comfortably at night, knowing you cast your vote for the best candidate?
sorry Prince......his position on the threat (or more so, lack there of) of militant Islam to this country & a good chunk of the rest of the globe, has unfortunately axed him from my small pool of Presidential options
sorry Prince......his position on the threat (or more so, lack there of) of militant Islam to this country & a good chunk of the rest of the globe, has unfortunately axed him from my small pool of Presidential options
You mean Ron Paul's position that bullying other people in other countries is bound to have negative consequences?
As another member of said voting block, given the choice between the 2, and acknowledging just how important it is in dealing with the current global conflicts, with Islamofascist terrorism right near the top, it's no problem for me to pull Rudy's lever. I'm not expecting the coming of Reagain II, but I'm hell not going to sit out and allow Clinton II in.
QuoteYou mean Ron Paul's position that bullying other people in other countries is bound to have negative consequences?
Well, you & he are entiled to that flawed premice.
No, I'm referring to Ron Paul's position that Militant Islam isn't any big deal, that terrorists killing in the name of Islam is nothing to get alarmed about, that Islamic terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations possibly coming to a point of obtaining a nuke or 2 is nothing we really need to care about.
QuoteYou mean Ron Paul's position that bullying other people in other countries is bound to have negative consequences?
Well, you & he are entiled to that flawed premice.
Are you suggesting there are not negative consequences?
No, I'm referring to Ron Paul's position that Militant Islam isn't any big deal, that terrorists killing in the name of Islam is nothing to get alarmed about, that Islamic terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations possibly coming to a point of obtaining a nuke or 2 is nothing we really need to care about.
You got a quote for that?
I have my opinion, same as yours regarding our simply wanting to bully people and other nations
Are you suggesting that Militant Islam isn't a major global issue we need to deal with?
Is Bush being completely insincere, even fraudulant in indiicating why we have troops in Iraq?, in Afghanistan?
QuoteNo, I'm referring to Ron Paul's position that Militant Islam isn't any big deal, that terrorists killing in the name of Islam is nothing to get alarmed about, that Islamic terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations possibly coming to a point of obtaining a nuke or 2 is nothing we really need to care about.QuoteYou got a quote for that?
I have my opinion, same as yours regarding our simply wanting to bully people and other nations
So... you don't have any evidence that such is Ron Paul's position, it's just your opinion that such is Ron Paul's position? Uh-huh.
I have my opinion, same as yours regarding our simply wanting to bully people and other nations
You don't have to assume anything, you can read about Ron Paul's view on terrorism: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism)
Why do you think Mr. Paul is so appealing to Nazis?
I understand they contribute to his campain with their time and money. I also understand he hasn't done anything to stop it.
| I asked Bydlak about attention the campaign is getting from creepy white supremacists, and whether if they discovered donations from specious people they'd give them back. "If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss," he said. What if the campaign keeps getting scrutiny as its coffers grow? "The scrutiny is a perfect sign of how this campaign is growing." |
Uh-huh, same as your opinion that we simply want to go bully people, like some mean kid on the block staking out his territory, and just making the neighbors mad at us
Uh-huh, same as your opinion that we simply want to go bully people, like some mean kid on the block staking out his territory, and just making the neighbors mad at us
I don't recall having said that. Feel free to point it out.
The point wasn't about whether there'd be consequences to our actions in the middle east.
The point was about the supposed act of bullying, as if THAT's all we're doing.
The point was about the supposed act of bullying, as if THAT's all we're doing.
Again, I don't recall saying that.
Despite my repeating it yet again in the prior response, you never apparently said it?
Actually the joke is in demonstrating precisely what you said you didn't say.
yuk yuk I guess is the appropriate response now
Actually the joke is in demonstrating precisely what you said you didn't say.
Then you told the joke poorly, because you haven't demonstrated that at all. Of course, you can't point to where I said what I didn't say, because I didn't say it. So again, the joke is on you.
Ummm, yea, that's it. What's been typed really wasn't typed. It's all just a figment of our imagination
I have my opinion, same as yours regarding our simply wanting to bully people and other nations
You don't have to assume anything, you can read about Ron Paul's view on terrorism: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism)
Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win," explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/115/suicide-terrorism/
I'd vote for Clinton II before I'd vote for Rudy.
Don't vote for either one. Vote for Ron Paul.
Ummm, yea, that's it. What's been typed really wasn't typed. It's all just a figment of our imagination
Tell you what, Sirs, if you can find a quote where I actually said some version of "we simply want to go bully people, like some mean kid on the block staking out his territory, and just making the neighbors mad at us" rather than just a quote where I used the word "bully" then I will be perfectly happy to publicly admit it.
So bully doesn't mean bully in your dictionary. Ooookaaaay
I have to admit, I am intrigued by Paul.
So bully doesn't mean bully in your dictionary. Ooookaaaay
Hm. I did not say that either. I'm sensing a pattern here. But I don't feel like another round of this game, so let's just drop it.
Should undocumented immigrants get driver's licenses?
If they don't, then they will jsut drive anyway to get to work and then look at the mess.
Should undocumented immigrants get driver's licenses?
No. You don't REWARD unlawful activityIf they don't, then they will jsut drive anyway to get to work and then look at the mess.
If they break the law, they're to reap the repercussions
I believe U.S. drivers licenses are for U.S. citizens to license them to operate heavy machinery on the US roads. It is also used as a legally accepted form of ID. It is also useful if you want to sneak a peak at someone's real birthday. Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?
I love immigrants. We ARE an awesome melting pot here. But there are right ways of doing things, and wrong ways. And we can't be patting people on the head that break the rules and say "aaaw, it's okay.. here, have a licence..."
I believe U.S. drivers licenses are for U.S. citizens to license them to operate heavy machinery on the US roads. It is also used as a legally accepted form of ID. It is also useful if you want to sneak a peak at someone's real birthday. Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?
Outstanding question. The most pervasive response is something along the lines of another question......"What are you going to do, deport everyone? They're already here". As if the fact that they have broken our immigration laws is apparently irrelevent
I love immigrants. We ARE an awesome melting pot here. But there are right ways of doing things, and wrong ways. And we can't be patting people on the head that break the rules and say "aaaw, it's okay.. here, have a licence..."
Absolutely on the mark Seamus. YET, such sentiment gets us folks labled racist, bigot, uncaring, uncompassionate, anti-immigrant, etc. Apparently becasue we don't want to allow mass crossing at will, we apparently don't want any. Go figure :-\ Immigration IS what has made this country great, that and its founding documents, the Constitution & Declaration of Independence. Some how though, frequently the open border contingent fails to recognize that we recognize that.
What would be the most fiscally responsible response to a person illegally coming into our country, and what is the most responsible? And (hopefully) are they the same?
I refer to the exorbitant cost of incarceration if we throw them in jail, but if we just send them home, they'll just return the same way they got here before. I know when I was younger, I was punished for doing wrong, and I learned not to do wrong. I think the death penalty might be extreme, obviously, but how can we show people that "NO, you may NOT come here illegally and if you do you do you will be punished!"
And as far as deporting them all back, WTH not? They're both CRIMINALS and Non-Citizens! I can tell you how excited *I* am about having a person who is not an American but who IS a criminal living next to me.
But if they are not in immediate danger then there is no reason they can't follow our procedures!
I mean, WHY do people want to come here?? Because we're a great nation! So, IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules?? It makes NO sense!
What would be the most fiscally responsible response to a person illegally coming into our country, and what is the most responsible? And (hopefully) are they the same?
That depends on why they entered illegally. Assuming all cases are the same is a short-sighted approach.
I refer to the exorbitant cost of incarceration if we throw them in jail, but if we just send them home, they'll just return the same way they got here before. I know when I was younger, I was punished for doing wrong, and I learned not to do wrong. I think the death penalty might be extreme, obviously, but how can we show people that "NO, you may NOT come here illegally and if you do you do you will be punished!"
When I was younger and punished for doing something wrong, I sometimes ended up asking why what I had done was wrong, because the reasons were not always obvious. And I'm still asking why it's wrong for people to come here without the bureaucratic nightmare that we currently have in place. I've seen all the arguments for it. Too many people, criminals, ruining the culture, et cetera, and they simply do not stand up to any sort of rational examination, imo. People traveling here and making private agreements to work or buy things does not harm anyone, infringes on no one's rights. So why should we make legally coming here so difficult that some folks think risking death to get here and imprisonment once they get here is preferable?
And as far as deporting them all back, WTH not? They're both CRIMINALS and Non-Citizens! I can tell you how excited *I* am about having a person who is not an American but who IS a criminal living next to me.
Criminals? And why? Because they broke a law to come here for the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families? Are they bad people because of that? I think they are not.
But if they are not in immediate danger then there is no reason they can't follow our procedures!
Indeed. And so they wait. And wait. And wait. Meanwhile, their family starves. Or meanwhile one gets in and the rest are left behind, and they wait. And I don't mean a few hours. Or a few days. Or a few months. Years. Sometimes a decade or more. And you wonder why some people don't want to follow the procedure?
I mean, WHY do people want to come here?? Because we're a great nation! So, IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules?? It makes NO sense!
Actually, it makes a great deal of sense. They want to come here without following the rules because they don't have time to wait while their families need food and shelter and clothing. Because risking death to get here is preferable to living in a one room shack made of scrap materials and wondering when the next meal will come. Risking imprisonment is, apparently, preferable to paying the fees and navigating the bureaucracy that stand in the way.
The question is not why don't people want to follow the rules. The question is why do our rules have to be so burdensome that people think risking death to get here is a preferable option. And the answer is that our rules do not need to be so burdensome. While Sirs likes to talk about how he supports immigration, and I see you claim to also support it, the fact of the matter is that both of you are also supporting regulations that have the direct effect of keeping people out of the country and creating a black market for labor that entices many people to try being here illegally.
(And Sirs will jump in soon and, I'm sure, explain that he doesn't want to keep anyone out of the country, he just wants them to come here legally. This, of course, does not change the fact that he argues in support of regulations that do in fact keep people from being able to enter. He'll probably say that is wrong also, but he and I have already had that conversation, and I don't intend to suffer through it again.)
Illegal immigration is not like stealing or murder. Immigration itself infringes on no one's rights. Theft and murder would be theft and murder even without laws. Illegal immigration only exists because there are laws restricting severely what should otherwise, imo, be ordinary behavior.
You say, "IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules?" I say, if the U.S. is a great nation, and is so in part because of immigration that was much more open in the past, then it doesn't to be oppressive in its immigration laws today. I say, if people by the millions find risking death and imprisonment to be here preferable to legal immigration, then there is clearly something wrong with our laws. Sometimes the law is wrong, and the solution to that problem is never going to be finding more ways to punish people for disobeying the law that is wrong.
>>Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?<<
Here's the reason liberals like the idea: The Motor Voter Act.
>>Why I agree it's probably crossed some peoples minds, you can't say it's the reason liberals (all) like it.<<
I'm sure it's crossed A LOT of liberals minds. As for all liberals, I don't think all liberals are smart enough to see it for what it is. Others will simply deny it.
As for all liberals, I don't think all liberals are smart enough to see it for what it is.Now, are you saying that no liberal is smart enough to understand the "Motor Voter Law"?
I suppose I should retract that. I should have said that most liberals don't understand that there even IS a motor voter law. Those who do are likely to deny it's true intent.
I suppose I should retract that. I should have said that most liberals don't understand that there even IS a motor voter law. Those who do are likely to deny it's true intent.
Well... hmm... I guess what I'm going to read into what you are saying is that "Those who do are likely to deny what I believe is to be it's true intent." as I believe you are implying the only reason the motor voter law is so that illegals can vote.
AgreedI suppose I should retract that. I should have said that most liberals don't understand that there even IS a motor voter law. Those who do are likely to deny it's true intent.
Well... hmm... I guess what I'm going to read into what you are saying is that "Those who do are likely to deny what I believe is to be it's true intent." as I believe you are implying the only reason the motor voter law is so that illegals can vote.
As far right as Rich can get, I tend to have to lean a little in his direction, on this point, Seamus. No one is advocating that legal Americans should not be allowed to vote. In fact, it's an obligation in my book.
That said, it's also just as important to make said elections as fraudless as possible. ACTUAL picture ID is a good thing, and SHOULD be required. This is in no means some backhanded racist thought, because it supposedly is disenfranchising a certain population because they lack the where with all in obtaining a picture ID. It simply helps to reinforce that the actual person pulling the lever is the SAME person that's a legal American. Motor voter is a perfect vehicle (pun intended) to facilitate voter fraud, since it's done with little, if any, background check or validation of if that person is not only the person voting but if they're even legal to vote. (and we won't even go into the garbage of supposed mass voter disenfranchisement in Florida & Ohio, given report after report after report of it NOT being the case, and not 1 legal court case arguing that it did)
Point being, who pushed "motor voter"? Which party? Who's opposing the idea of photo ID to vote? Which party? One then needs to deduce why, and the "why's" here aren't that hard to theorize
See, you are saying party, while I don't THINK party had been brought up. I was discussing as my opinion as a liberal. I rarely follow the general flow of the Democrat party. But I am am member, because we really only HAVE two parties.
Who pushes motor voter? Democrats I would imagine. Who's opposing the photo ID requirement? I haven't heard much about it, honestly. Is it the Democrats? In my opinion, there could be little greater thing that some security to our voting! I have often wondered, ever since I COULD vote, how come you didn't have to show ID. It just seemed insane to me.
Basically, I have not thought about how easy you make it sound for people to get a drivers licenses. I believe that as hard as we want to make it for people to get fraudulent drivers licenses, we should make it just as hard to register to vote. And visa versa. Does that make sense?
See, here is what my issue is, and what I hear from a number of people on different subjects. It's not WHY it's illegal. It's THAT it is illegal.
On a side note, when you were punished for something you didn't see obvious, and asked about it afterwards, did you still learn not to do it? Just my curiosity.
QuoteCriminals? And why? Because they broke a law to come here for the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families? Are they bad people because of that? I think they are not.
Yes. Yes, because they broke the law. I want them to have the opportunities. They are not "bad" for desiring it, certainly. But it is U.S. Law that you do X, Y,(and possibly A,E,D,F,T,W,H,Y,U,L AND P) in order for you to get here. So, when there is a tedious list of things to do, I find it is good to start at the beginning. But I don't think it's right that they try and CUT in LINE.
I agree with you that if a family is starving, they should be able to ask for assistance from us. I don't know what the proper response would be, but we would be morally required to do SOMETHING.
However to say it's okay to come over and you can ignore the laws would be wrong.
As always, these are my opinions, and if I've said anything personally offensive, please let me know.
I believe that we should protect our borders and be careful of who comes in. We DO have people trying to come after us. We're at war. I believe in walls and military and guards and checkpoints and documentation.
Can anyone tell me, if an family wants to become Americans, what is the current method? Do they pay fees? Do they have to seek a lawyer? Do they have to have sex with the mayor? (joke, hopefully!) Do they have to go to an American embassy? Why is it so hard for people to come here legally?
>>As far right as Rich can get ... <<
I'm anti-death penalty. How far right is that? Now-a-days I guess defending your country makes you way out in right field.
George Bush had a plan for reforming immagration to make it more orderly and easyer for the leagal immagrant.
While at the same time makeing it harder for the illeagal immagrant , smuggler , criminal and terrorist to cross the border.
This plan has been shredded and forgotten , It had elements in it that were attacked from each side .
This is the disadvantage of being a moderate and eager to crompromise , President Bush has no zelots in his corner , because he is in the middle, he isn't in a corner.
Our present policys if they could be properly enforced would ruin our economy , but with he half hearted enforcement it gets it is causeing hudreds to die of thirst or down on the way here and many thousands to work beneith the threat of discovery and accept less wage than their work is worth.
We really ought to change , but in what direction?
George Bush had a plan for reforming immigration to make it more orderly and essayer for the leagal immigrant.
While at the same time making it harder for the illegal immigrant , smuggler , criminal and terrorist to cross the border.
This plan has been shredded and forgotten , It had elements in it that were attacked from each side .
This is the disadvantage of being a moderate and eager to compromise , President Bush has no zealots in his corner , because he is in the middle, he isn't in a corner.
Our present policies if they could be properly enforced would ruin our economy , but with he half hearted enforcement it gets it is causing hundreds to die of thirst or down on the way here and many thousands to work beneath the threat of discovery and accept less wage than their work is worth.
We really ought to change , but in what direction?
I'd love to hear more about former immigration plan. As far as what direction should we change, I believe we need to err on the side of caution, myself. I think that we need to let in those people who need in, but not until a thorough check on them somehow. We need to protect ourselves.
That is really unfortunate that the plan you mentioned got shredded... Was it riders or what that killed it? It sounds like exactly what we need.
I believe U.S. drivers licenses are for U.S. citizens to license them to operate heavy machinery on the US roads. It is also used as a legally accepted form of ID. It is also useful if you want to sneak a peak at someone's real birthday.
I believe U.S. drivers licenses are for U.S. citizens to license them to operate heavy machinery on the US roads. It is also used as a legally accepted form of ID. It is also useful if you want to sneak a peak at someone's real birthday.
You think that resident aliens and even aliens here on extended vacation shouldn't be allowed to drive?
I've never personally known someone who was a citizen of another country that was here legally. Not even on vacation.
So CalI've never personally known someone who was a citizen of another country that was here legally. Not even on vacation.
Where the hell do you live?
Cool... How come if they've been here for 45 years they haven't wanted to become citizens? (Just curious. It's not my business, really!)
Personally, I'm dual-national, but my parents and my sister are Austrian citizens. They've been living in the US for over 45 years, paying taxes, paying Social Security, etc. I know a large number of green card holders, personally.
Thank you! I've never seen one before... What if we have some kind of addendum on the resident alien card that allows them to drive? They can take the tests and get a happy face on their card or something that says "Licensed to drive in XX"
Cool... How come if they've been here for 45 years they haven't wanted to become citizens? (Just curious. It's not my business, really!)
Here is the deal. They are here to work. Public transportation sucks, so they need a car to get to work on time and keep the job.
If they have a license, they can drive legally and buy insurance. If they do not have a license, they will drive illegally and NOT have insurance. If they have an accident, they will run away, leaving you to pay for the damage, leaving your bloody body in the street.
Why should I send you a dollar when you seem to think it's okay for them to be here in the first place. And why do you think that if your "illegal Juan or Henri" are here illegally and are already breaking our laws, they're going to spend their money on INSURANCE? Because it's the LAW?
If that is okay with you, then deprive them of licenses to make your bloody point. But promise to send me a check when some illegal Juan or Henri hits me or my car and runs off.
I for one, am all for the state issuing licenses, because I have to drive here in Miami, where maybe 15% of the population is illegally here.So your response is to give them licenses? Tell me again how this fixes anything? They're breaking the law! Taking away one of the laws they're breaking (by giving them licenses) doesn't mean they are going to get insurance! It doesn't mean they're going to pay the tags on their vehicles. It doesn't mean they're going to pay taxes, and it SURELY doesn't mean they're going to stop and say "oops, my bad" when they hit you and leave your bloody body on the street.
Bush's immigration plan was more manageable than the mess we have now. The laws we have have not been enforced and won't ever be enforced.
It is not, nor will it ever be possible to arrest and deport 12,000,000 illegal aliens. So we need something more workable.
The rich depend on illegals to do shitty jobs, as in copnstruction, for low wages. Republicans need cheap labor.
The legal immigrants sympathize with the illegal immigrants. Democrats feel that illegals will become legal and will vote Democratic.
Both parties have or think they have) an interest in preserving the status quo, but the status quo has horrible consequences and is not sustainable.
Thank you! I've never seen one before... What if we have some kind of addendum on the resident alien card that allows them to drive? They can take the tests and get a happy face on their card or something that says "Licensed to drive in XX"
How's about we just leave the system that works alone? If they are a permanent resident, they currently have all the rights and duties of citizens, with the exception of voting. Sounds like it works fine to me. They vote in Austrian elections. I can vote in either, but have voted in the US until now.
Cool... How come if they've been here for 45 years they haven't wanted to become citizens? (Just curious. It's not my business, really!)
I want our citizens to have a convenient, yet secure, way of showing that they are actually CITIZENS.
I could be worng, but from a US perspective, you are NOT a dual citizen. Many other nations view it differently, but...I've never personally known someone who was a citizen of another country that was here legally. Not even on vacation.
Where the hell do you live?
Personally, I'm dual-national, but my parents and my sister are Austrian citizens. They've been living in the US for over 45 years, paying taxes, paying Social Security, etc. I know a large number of green card holders, personally.
Here's is what their resident alien cards look like:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Greencard3.gif)
I could be worng, but from a US perspective, you are NOT a dual citizen. Many other nations view it differently, but...
This sounds cool. Yo can have your cake and eat it too! ;)
CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation." Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.
Post-Debate Questions [Bill Bennett]
Why is everyone saying Hillary Clinton's performance was so boffo and her answer on licenses to illegals - "No" - was so cool when it directly contradicted her answer earlier this month? This is what Kerry did - in favor before he was opposed - that we flogged him for for the duration of the campaign.
Why isn't this an anchor?
And why right now aren't Republican candidates shouting about immigration from the rooftops and putting Dems in a box?
11/17 11:56 AM
Post-Debate Questions [Bill Bennett]
Why is everyone saying Hillary Clinton's performance was so boffo and her answer on licenses to illegals - "No" - was so cool when it directly contradicted her answer earlier this month? This is what Kerry did - in favor before he was opposed - that we flogged him for for the duration of the campaign.
Why isn't this an anchor?
And why right now aren't Republican candidates shouting about immigration from the rooftops and putting Dems in a box?
11/17 11:56 AM
The fact that the media is sorting out the place cards and stacking the deck in terms of questions is clear, or should be, to any one who watched this last Dem debate.
The audience was loaded, as well, by Hillary supporters. When she made a point, they cheered; when others made a point, especially when they acted totally appropriately to the game at hand, and criticized her, they booed and hissed, almost to the point of interruption. At one point, Obama became flummoxed by the catcalls from Hillary's supporters, and one could see Hillary gloating over it. The fact that they had canned questions is not surprising, given the entrenched bias.
Edwards took some risks by implying that the whole of Washington is corrupt, and that measures that fail to address this, are doomed to failure. Natually, Hillary took it personally. She should. She is too corrupt not to. Her most recent behind the scenes cabals are with Rupert Murdock and others who were formerly a part of what she coined as the "right wing conspiracy."
Edwards made the best points, as objective political assesments are made, but the world watching also knows that Americans react to political debates with the same narcississtic tickling that their advertising and white house press releases have taught them to. The "Ugly American" has been replaced by the "Gullible American" when it comes to describing your average 'consumer,' who used to be your average 'citizen.'
IMHO, the only outcome I am looking for in this election stack up is to determine if any chance, any objective opportunity will given to those who refer to the K Street, politician connection.
The rest is bullshit.
The same game with new players is still the same game, and the same problem.
Unbridled corruption.