Colin wrote: >and all previous Presidenat are now poor and made no money from their >position? If the people don't want this to happen, don't vote them in. Oh I did not mean to imply that at all! Many before have walked out with fortunes. From your previous comments it seemed like maybe you thought they did not have much money because you questioned why "they should be made to pay out of their own pockets." Unfortunately we often don't know the real character of the people we vote for in advance. When their flaws later become revealed to us, usually too late, either people don't want to believe it or they want to help enable them. Supposedly we have laws and safeguards to help prevent such abuse but the trend in recent years has been to throw those out and ignore them, too, when it comes to political figures. It's really disconcerting, especially when the laws don't likewise apply to the "little guys" who get prosecuted, fined or imprisoned for much less everyday. > have wealthy friends who pay off many of their bills and then there are those >pesky questions about money changing hands for pardons. >>this latter comment has nothing to do with whether or not Chelsea should >>have protection. You mentioned moral obligations of a country to protect ex-presidents' families and I agree. Those presidents should have moral obligations, too. You don't have to like our presidents and I've always thought it's probably healthy to keep a jaded eye on most politicians in general. Kakki
