Mickey Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Earle has tried for something more serious. I understand that this is the sixth grand jury. The previous five would not indict DeLay. The hatchet job is not going very well and this was the best that Earle could do. 460406[/snapback] I'm sure Earle is going to get swiftboated so that very soon all we will be talking about his him and not any potential wrongdoing by the Hammer. Funny thing is that on this board all you ever hear is how corrupt politicians are and how they should all go to jail. Well, here is an indictment seeking to put one of them in jail and all of a sudden the politician is an innocent victim and the prosecutor is the corrupt one. How exactly is Washington ever going to get cleaned up if not by tossing a few big fish into the bass-o-matic when they get caught with their hands in the till? If absolute power corrupts absolutely, how crazy is it to think that just maybe a leader with absolute power is absolutely corrupt? Nah, can't be. Must be a politically motivated, evil, out of control prosecutor. Free The Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 I'm sure Earle is going to get swiftboated so that very soon all we will be talking about his him and not any potential wrongdoing by the Hammer. Funny thing is that on this board all you ever hear is how corrupt politicians are and how they should all go to jail. Well, here is an indictment seeking to put one of them in jail and all of a sudden the politician is an innocent victim and the prosecutor is the corrupt one. How exactly is Washington ever going to get cleaned up if not by tossing a few big fish into the bass-o-matic when they get caught with their hands in the till? If absolute power corrupts absolutely, how crazy is it to think that just maybe a leader with absolute power is absolutely corrupt? Nah, can't be. Must be a politically motivated, evil, out of control prosecutor. Free The Hammer 460729[/snapback] Yeah, it's HIGHLY unlikely that YOU'D be making the opposite argument if it were a Republican prosecutor and a Democratic Senator. Sure. I wish the NFL was as predictable as your politics. I'd be in Bill Gates' territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 I'm sure Earle is going to get swiftboated so that very soon all we will be talking about his him and not any potential wrongdoing by the Hammer. Funny thing is that on this board all you ever hear is how corrupt politicians are and how they should all go to jail. Well, here is an indictment seeking to put one of them in jail and all of a sudden the politician is an innocent victim and the prosecutor is the corrupt one. How exactly is Washington ever going to get cleaned up if not by tossing a few big fish into the bass-o-matic when they get caught with their hands in the till? If absolute power corrupts absolutely, how crazy is it to think that just maybe a leader with absolute power is absolutely corrupt? Nah, can't be. Must be a politically motivated, evil, out of control prosecutor. Free The Hammer 460729[/snapback] The DNC mouthpiece/apologist strikes again. You must be pretty limber to be able to twist yourself in a pretzel on a regular basis, trying to fabricate things to suit your agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Unless someone is willing to prepare about 520 indictments, Capitol Hill is not going to see any change. Dems can enjoy their circle jerk for now, later it will be the Republicans, then back again. Outside of manipulations, alliances and games on the hill, it doesn't matter. Interchangeable parts. What is important is that the democrats are truly getting their message out that all republicans are corrupt and hate black people. Hispanics better look out because I'm pretty certain the RNC is behind the killings of migrants in Georgia. I see the "Under God" thing is back in the news too. Excuse me, I have a dog to kick at 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Yeah, it's HIGHLY unlikely that YOU'D be making the opposite argument if it were a Republican prosecutor and a Democratic Senator. Sure. I wish the NFL was as predictable as your politics. I'd be in Bill Gates' territory. 460742[/snapback] If there were a thread on the indictment of a democratic leader of Delay's stature, I'd have commented in that thread but, there doesn't seem to be one. What's your point besides the self congratulatory one you make ad nauseum that everyone is partisan but you? Any chance you are interested in discussing the Delay indictment on its merits? Aren't you the one who is always telling us that all politicians are corrupt? Do you support, oppose or have no opinion on this indictment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 The DNC mouthpiece/apologist strikes again. You must be pretty limber to be able to twist yourself in a pretzel on a regular basis, trying to fabricate things to suit your agenda. 460856[/snapback] How would you suggest the rampant corruption in Washington get cleaned up since grand jury indictments aren't your cup of tea? Do you really think that as we speak, the Republican spin meisters aren't doing all they can to try and discredit the DA involved? Do you really think the effort to discredit the prosecutor depends on whether the indictments were warranted or not? I think that irrespective of the strength of the indictment of which neither of us can be sure, not having been one of the grand jurors, the party apparatus would be in full gear going after the credibility of the DA. That is the point I made. If I am so awfully wrong because I am such a partisan, please tell me why you think that if the indictments were validly issued by the grand jury, the right wouldn't be out to hang the DA anyway. By the way, since when were you voted non-partisan of the month? Hint: posting that other conservatives are not conservative enough is about as non-partisan as a lefty posting that Howard Dean should listen more to Cindy Sheehan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Unless someone is willing to prepare about 520 indictments, Capitol Hill is not going to see any change. Dems can enjoy their circle jerk for now, later it will be the Republicans, then back again. Outside of manipulations, alliances and games on the hill, it doesn't matter. Interchangeable parts. What is important is that the democrats are truly getting their message out that all republicans are corrupt and hate black people. Hispanics better look out because I'm pretty certain the RNC is behind the killings of migrants in Georgia. I see the "Under God" thing is back in the news too. Excuse me, I have a dog to kick at 10. 460881[/snapback] I agree with you but that is not a reason to mourn this indictment as much as it is to mourn that there is only one. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea to quadruple the amount of congressman and quarter their salaries. Imagine having to bribe 4 times as many congressman. Get rid of corruption by pricing it out of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I agree with you but that is not a reason to mourn this indictment as much as it is to mourn that there is only one. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea to quadruple the amount of congressman and quarter their salaries. Imagine having to bribe 4 times as many congressman. Get rid of corruption by pricing it out of the market. 463320[/snapback] If you quadrupled the number of them, especially w/ reducing their salaries; law of supply and demand says it gets cheaper to bribe a congressman. Demand has remained constant; supply has increased and marginal cost of bribe the market setting bribee is willing to take has likely gone down as well. You would get even less accomplished, and pork-laden bills just got a lot more pork in them as you now have many more congresscritters to feed at the trough. In theory, it would make the govt. more representative and responsive as each congresscritter would now represent a smaller constituency; but reality is - the cluster f*** gets worse, not better. I know you were just joking, but that is a horrible idea. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 If there were a thread on the indictment of a democratic leader of Delay's stature, I'd have commented in that thread but, there doesn't seem to be one. I know. I also know pretty much what you'd say. It wouldn't be the same. What's your point besides the self congratulatory one you make ad nauseum that everyone is partisan but you? That was pretty much it. You're generally a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff. Few here aren't (KRC, DCT, BiB and a few others pass the test). Any chance you are interested in discussing the Delay indictment on its merits? Aren't you the one who is always telling us that all politicians are corrupt? Do you support, oppose or have no opinion on this indictment? 463284[/snapback] To be honest I haven't read much about it, but he's probably guilty of something. Most of them are. It's likely the guy who brought up the charges is too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 How would you suggest the rampant corruption in Washington get cleaned up since grand jury indictments aren't your cup of tea? You are so cute when you automatically assign opinions to people, but get your panties in a bunch when people do it to you. Hypocrite, thy name is Mickey. Do you really think that as we speak, the Republican spin meisters aren't doing all they can to try and discredit the DA involved? Do you really think the effort to discredit the prosecutor depends on whether the indictments were warranted or not? I think that irrespective of the strength of the indictment of which neither of us can be sure, not having been one of the grand jurors, the party apparatus would be in full gear going after the credibility of the DA. That is the point I made. If I am so awfully wrong because I am such a partisan, please tell me why you think that if the indictments were validly issued by the grand jury, the right wouldn't be out to hang the DA anyway. The DA tried several different times to get an indictment against DeLay. He failed numerous times but still forged ahead to find anything he could. When the indictment reads, "the defendents...did enter into an agreement with one or more of each other," you know that he had trouble getting this to stick. All you have to do is read the indictment as it spells out the wrongdoings of the other defendents, but only mentions DeLay as waiving some legal rights. By the way, since when were you voted non-partisan of the month? Hint: posting that other conservatives are not conservative enough is about as non-partisan as a lefty posting that Howard Dean should listen more to Cindy Sheehan. 463305[/snapback] Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 You are so cute when you automatically assign opinions to people, but get your panties in a bunch when people do it to you. Hypocrite, thy name is Mickey.The DA tried several different times to get an indictment against DeLay. He failed numerous times but still forged ahead to find anything he could. When the indictment reads, "the defendents...did enter into an agreement with one or more of each other," you know that he had trouble getting this to stick. All you have to do is read the indictment as it spells out the wrongdoings of the other defendents, but only mentions DeLay as waiving some legal rights. Huh? 463374[/snapback] My post that indictments are one way to go after corruption and that the right was going to go after the DA for issuing one was met with a nasty response from you which made no argument that indictments aren't a good way to go after corruption nor that the right wasn't going to attack the DA. I assumed you didn't care for indictments as a way to treat corruption; why else would you respond so negatively to my post? Since you didn't address either point I made specifically, I presumed that you didn't think indictments were a good idea in fighting corruption. Now I see your point is that you don't think much of this indicement. Had you addressed the points I made originally rather than all that insulting personal stuff about the DNC etc., we might have had a reasonable discussion form the git go. The second issue is going after the DA for the indictments by attacking his credibility. Again, I am not making any assumption about the strength of the indictments since I wasn't on the grand jury. My point is that the DA will be swiftboated. I'll just ask the same question I asked before, do you really think that the right wouldn't be going after the DA's credibility regardless of the strength of the indictments? I think they would even if the indictments were issued by a panel of nuns who watched a video tape of Delay with panty hose on his head knocking over a liquor store. If you agree with my point that the DA would be attacked on the right irrespective of the strength of the indictments, I have to ask, why the nastiness when I said the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I know. I also know pretty much what you'd say. It wouldn't be the same.That was pretty much it. You're generally a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff. Few here aren't (KRC, DCT, BiB and a few others pass the test). To be honest I haven't read much about it, but he's probably guilty of something. Most of them are. It's likely the guy who brought up the charges is too. 463366[/snapback] Okay, so you think he is probably guilty "of something" while all I did was state that indictments are not a bad way to go after corrupt officials. Worlds apart aren't we? So if I was against the indictment of Delay I would be defending a corrupt politician and if I support the DA I am a partisan lap dog. Either way I get one of your nasty and personal replies. By the way, did you happen to read my first post in this thread: "I would point out that he is innocent until proven guilty and his family has all my sympathy in having to deal with the media frenzy that is certain to follow. I would also add that neither Tom Delay nor the Republican party invented the notion of corrupt politics and corrupt politicians. With all those caveats having been said, thank God and the law for Grand Juries and good riddance to a real #$!@#$@$." Clearly full of raving partisanship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 In case you missed it, DeLay was just indicted for money laundering too. The story is on the Dallas Morning News and you need a login, but here's a start: >>DeLay indicted on money laundering charge 05:46 PM CDT on Monday, October 3, 2005 Associated Press AUSTIN – A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on a charge of money laundering, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader. << etc. So TWO grand juries are either idiots or corrupt according to much of the blather I see here. Or maybe, just maybe, the guy did something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Good to see a wtich-hunt is still an effective tactic. The Dems should be careful in exercising their glee, because paybacks can be a biatch. 457916[/snapback] Right...from the people who gave us the special persecutor, Whitewater and the half-assed impeachment effort over a blow job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Right...from the people who gave us the special persecutor, Whitewater and the half-assed impeachment effort over a blow job 463891[/snapback] Yeah that's it, he was impeached for a BJ. Keep thinking that lying under oath is just a small, minor detail. She could have kissed him on the cheek and he would still have been impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 ...from the people who gave us the special persecutor, Whitewater and the half-assed impeachment effort over a blow job 463891[/snapback] That would be Janet Reno...i.e. the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 That would be Janet Reno...i.e. the Democrats. 463980[/snapback] Actually Reno appointed Robert Fiske. Fiske was then replaced by Ken Starr when the Office of the Independent Counsel took over and then the circus show really took off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Since you didn't address either point I made specifically, I presumed that you didn't think indictments were a good idea in fighting corruption. Guilty until proven innocent. Nice job, counselor. Now I see your point is that you don't think much of this indicement. Had you addressed the points I made originally rather than all that insulting personal stuff about the DNC etc., we might have had a reasonable discussion form the git go. 463648[/snapback] I gave up on having reasonable discussions with you a long time ago. You used to be a quality poster. You have now just turned into an apologist for the DNC and have lost all credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Guilty until proven innocent. Nice job, counselor.I gave up on having reasonable discussions with you a long time ago. You used to be a quality poster. You have now just turned into an apologist for the DNC and have lost all credibility. 464234[/snapback] Riiiiight. I post that indictments are one way to deter political corruption, you apparently agree but elect to attack me as a partisan rather than to discuss the merits of this particular indictment or their effectiveness in general and I am the unreasonable one. Makes sense. I'll ask for the third time now, do you think that the attack on Earle's credibility would have occurred irrespective of the strength of the indictment? Actually indictments I believe is now the correct term as a second grand jury has issued another one against Delay. I made two points in that post, one was that indictments are one way to fight political corruption, a problem so often lamented hereabouts. The second point was that Earle was going to be subjected to the predictable and now familiar tactic of having his personal credibility attacked from the right. Apparently we agree that indictments can be a good way to fight corruption but you have doubts that this particular indictment is a very good one while I have pled ignorance as to its strength or weakness not having sat on the grand jury myself. If you agree that Earle would be attacked regardless of the quality of the indictments, then we end up with not really disagreeing with eachother all that much despite my alleged status as an unreasonable partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Guilty until proven innocent. Nice job, counselor.I gave up on having reasonable discussions with you a long time ago. You used to be a quality poster. You have now just turned into an apologist for the DNC and have lost all credibility. 464234[/snapback] But it's ok for you to be an apologist for the RNC. HYPOCRITE, thy name is KRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts