The Despicable DeLay Rule

[Guest Cerebus]

There is a lot of crap that makes me ashamed to be a Republican sometimes, nearly none of them metioned by the left-wing clowns on this board, but this tops them all (although I'm proud to say that all three Republican reps from my home state voiced their opinions against it).

 

And, in case you're wondering, here's where he's getting his cash.

 

But much of the rest of the cash comes from a posse of corporate donors such as Texas horse-racing magnate Charles Hurwitz, who, along with his company, Maxxam, has chipped in $10,000 to pay DeLay's legal debts. (Hurwitz also has contributed an additional $24,000 to other DeLay campaign committees in recent years.) Hurwitz and DeLay have a long relationship: when Hurwitz was facing a suit by federal regulators for allegedly defrauding a savings and loan in 1999, DeLay interceded with the chief federal bank regulator in an unsuccessful attempt to get her agency to back off the case. Hurwitz later hosted a golf and marlin-fishing fund-raiser for DeLay at Palmas del Mar, a luxurious resort complex he owns in Puerto Rico.

 

Disgusting. We got rid of Lott, when the hell is DeLay getting the axe?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Well, we would've normally said when he gets indicted for his crimes, but then, the House Republicans sought to change the rules for making people step out of a leadership spot when indicted...

 

Ironically, I didn't read the article before I posted this, and it was about just that. Nice pull, my friend.

[Highland 0]

Is there a segregationist he can praise during their birthday?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I'm sure the influence of Tom DeLay can be seen in representatives other than himself.

 

But yeah, the rules change is a bad idea. Then again, some people will fall on their swords for the House Majority Leader.

 

(when it comes to DeLay, at least he's on the record for wanting to withdraw the US from the UN. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll163.xml )

 

H.AMDT.138 (A010)

Amends: H.R.1757

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (offered 6/4/1997)

AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:

Amendment sought to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

 

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

An amendment to require the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.

[Guest MikeSC]

There is a lot of crap that makes me ashamed to be a Republican sometimes, nearly none of them metioned by the left-wing clowns on this board, but this tops them all (although I'm proud to say that all three Republican reps from my home state voiced their opinions against it).

 

And, in case you're wondering, here's where he's getting his cash.

 

But much of the rest of the cash comes from a posse of corporate donors such as Texas horse-racing magnate Charles Hurwitz, who, along with his company, Maxxam, has chipped in $10,000 to pay DeLay's legal debts. (Hurwitz also has contributed an additional $24,000 to other DeLay campaign committees in recent years.) Hurwitz and DeLay have a long relationship: when Hurwitz was facing a suit by federal regulators for allegedly defrauding a savings and loan in 1999, DeLay interceded with the chief federal bank regulator in an unsuccessful attempt to get her agency to back off the case. Hurwitz later hosted a golf and marlin-fishing fund-raiser for DeLay at Palmas del Mar, a luxurious resort complex he owns in Puerto Rico.

 

Disgusting. We got rid of Lott, when the hell is DeLay getting the axe?

The reason they don't want him to leave due to an indictment is that they never anticipated a partisan hack of a prosector (Democrat Ronnie Earle) indicting Republicans for virtually no reason (as he did to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, when he indicted her for using state funds to run her Senatorial campaign, but the case was dismissed when he refused to present evidence at the trial). Also keep in mind she was not the first person he did this to.

 

If DeLay is forced to step down due to an insanely overzealous partisan hack of a state prosecutor, then this will lead to more of these rules.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

If DeLay is forced to step down due to an insanely overzealous partisan hack of a state prosecutor, then this will lead to more of these rules.

-=Mike

 

Speaking of partisan hackery...

[Guest MikeSC]

If DeLay is forced to step down due to an insanely overzealous partisan hack of a state prosecutor, then this will lead to more of these rules.

-=Mike

 

Speaking of partisan hackery...

I know. You posted.

-=Mike

...Who's going to become MUCH less friendly...

[Special K 0]

Just because a left-winger brings it up, doesn't mean it ain't true.

[Guest MikeSC]

Just because a left-winger brings it up, doesn't mean it ain't true.

In this case, the prosecutor has a LONG history of attacking political enemies on virtually nothing.

 

The Hutchinson case was not invented.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

The reason they don't want him to leave due to an indictment is that they never anticipated a partisan hack of a prosector (Democrat Ronnie Earle) indicting Republicans for virtually no reason (as he did to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, when he indicted her for using state funds to run her Senatorial campaign, but the case was dismissed when he refused to present evidence at the trial). Also keep in mind she was not the first person he did this to.

 

If DeLay is forced to step down due to an insanely overzealous partisan hack of a state prosecutor, then this will lead to more of these rules.

              -=Mike

Earle's partisan hackery has led to the indictments of 15 politicians, 4 of them being Republicans. Proving that Ronnie Earle is a big stinking Commie. Or just a Longhorn.

 

Now if Ronnie Earle was only more like men with intregity, like Kenneth Starr. Then he could produce some partisan witchhunts that we could be proud of.

 

[Special K 0]

Which sort of proves my point. Starr was ultrapartisan. That doesn't mean Clinton didn't screw around with Monica, then lie about it.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Which sort of proves my point. Starr was ultrapartisan. That doesn't mean Clinton didn't screw around with Monica, then lie about it.

Yeah.. I'd prefer scandal-plagued politicians from my party to not have such affairs.

 

There's a group of Democrats who really dislike Clinton. Sure, they also claim that he's part of the reason why the Democrats lost the House and Senate. But, it's not a total lovefest.

 

Coming soon to Barnes and Noble: "Ronnie Earle - He's a bad man" by Thomas DeLay

[Guest MikeSC]

The reason they don't want him to leave due to an indictment is that they never anticipated a partisan hack of a prosector (Democrat Ronnie Earle) indicting Republicans for virtually no reason (as he did to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, when he indicted her for using state funds to run her Senatorial campaign, but the case was dismissed when he refused to present evidence at the trial). Also keep in mind she was not the first person he did this to.

 

If DeLay is forced to step down due to an insanely overzealous partisan hack of a state prosecutor, then this will lead to more of these rules.

              -=Mike

Earle's partisan hackery has led to the indictments of 15 politicians, 4 of them being Republicans. Proving that Ronnie Earle is a big stinking Commie. Or just a Longhorn.

 

Now if Ronnie Earle was only more like men with intregity, like Kenneth Starr. Then he could produce some partisan witchhunts that we could be proud of.

 

Explain the Hutchinson thing. Please. Go ahead. Explain the partisan hackery of Earle away.

 

And it's ironic that Starr --- who had things thrown on his plate --- is considered a hack, but Earle, who has NO qualms about charging people with no actual evidence, isn't.

 

Bizarre.

Which sort of proves my point. Starr was ultrapartisan. That doesn't mean Clinton didn't screw around with Monica, then lie about it.

Starr was not ultrapartisan. He was told to keep investigating new things.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Mike...I think the point trying to be made here is not the previous political hackery by Earle, but by what's being presented in terms of evidence here. Granted, it is only Newsweek and the Washington Post really delving into it here in terms of media coverage, but whatever.

 

Point made, he's under investigation, and from what it looks like, has been getting by with more than a little help from his friends.

 

--Ryan

...who doesn't really give a shit that he may have pulled this that or the other thing on someone because OH BAH GAWD that must mean he's doing it here...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

But DUDE... it was a LIBERAL making the accusation, so IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE!!!

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike...I think the point trying to be made here is not the previous political hackery by Earle, but by what's being presented in terms of evidence here. Granted, it is only Newsweek and the Washington Post really delving into it here in terms of media coverage, but whatever.

 

Point made, he's under investigation, and from what it looks like, has been getting by with more than a little help from his friends.

 

--Ryan

...who doesn't really give a shit that he may have pulled this that or the other thing on someone because OH BAH GAWD that must mean he's doing it here...

I'd rather DeLay be charged by a non-hack. Earle is a hack. I don't doubt DeLay has done some bad stuff --- I do not begin to buy anything Earle says.

 

Let's say, oh, Ann Coulter has legitimate evidence that a Democrat did something horrendous. No matter how good the evidence is, would you believe it, considering the source?

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Regardless of who is prosecuting, the fact is the Republicans changed a rule to protect their own political hack of a Majority Leader.

 

Where are the Republicans who rightly ousted Trott as Senate Majority Leader for merely moronic comments but bends over for DeLay who violates a key part of the ethical criteria for remaining House Majority Leader?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

If she provides solid evidence, yeah, quite frankly.

 

It doesn't matter who's presenting the evidence. If you're talking about Coulter having indisputable (and I use that term ironically) evidence that all liberals are evil, uh, yeah, we're not gonna believe her. However, if she had indisputable evidence that Ted Kennedy broke campaign finance laws, then yeah, it'd be sort of hard to argue. But not for you! Because in your world of crystal clarity in terms of black and white, everything that liberals say are lies and DeLay is bulletproof.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaatever. It says something that not even the staunchest conservatives on this board are backing you up on this.

[Guest MikeSC]

If she provides solid evidence, yeah, quite frankly.

 

It doesn't matter who's presenting the evidence. If you're talking about Coulter having indisputable (and I use that term ironically) evidence that all liberals are evil, uh, yeah, we're not gonna believe her. However, if she had indisputable evidence that Ted Kennedy broke campaign finance laws, then yeah, it'd be sort of hard to argue. But not for you! Because in your world of crystal clarity in terms of black and white, everything that liberals say are lies and DeLay is bulletproof.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaatever. It says something that not even the staunchest conservatives on this board are backing you up on this.

Do you think I care?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

OH SNAP, 15 YEAR OLD ANARCHIST EMO KID'D!

[Guest Cerebus]

If she provides solid evidence, yeah, quite frankly.

 

It doesn't matter who's presenting the evidence. If you're talking about Coulter having indisputable (and I use that term ironically) evidence that all liberals are evil, uh, yeah, we're not gonna believe her. However, if she had indisputable evidence that Ted Kennedy broke campaign finance laws, then yeah, it'd be sort of hard to argue. But not for you! Because in your world of crystal clarity in terms of black and white, everything that liberals say are lies and DeLay is bulletproof.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaatever. It says something that not even the staunchest conservatives on this board are backing you up on this.

Do you think I care?

Where's Bad Post Pointout when we need him?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, Mike, you haven't been your usual joyous self as of late. Everything OK?...

[Guest MikeSC]

OH SNAP, 15 YEAR OLD ANARCHIST EMO KID'D!

You are sadly mistaken if you assume I spend any time wondering if people agree with me.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Liberal : Conservative

INXS : A MikeSC

 

I wouldn't have said this a year ago.

 

But I'm saying it now.

[Guest MikeSC]

Liberal : Conservative

INXS : A MikeSC

 

I wouldn't have said this a year ago.

 

But I'm saying it now.

Actually, you've said similar shit for over a year now.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Liberal : Conservative

INXS : A MikeSC

 

I wouldn't have said this a year ago.

 

But I'm saying it now.

Not even close man, not even close. Mike has a LONG way to go before he's INXS.

 

Think of the political spectrum as a floating platform, where you can be on the left or right. INXS toppled off the left end into a sea of idiocy. Mike hasn't fallen off the right end yet.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Here's another one.

 

Enviro-weenie who thinks it's any of his business what property owners do with their land:Property owner

 

Eric:kkk

 

But at least your honest with yourself and I give you credit for that...

[Guest MikeSC]

Liberal : Conservative

INXS : A MikeSC

 

I wouldn't have said this a year ago.

 

But I'm saying it now.

Not even close man, not even close. Mike has a LONG way to go before he's INXS.

 

Think of the political spectrum as a floating platform, where you can be on the left or right. INXS toppled off the left end into a sea of idiocy. Mike hasn't fallen off the right end yet.

It doesn't matter as Mike plans on not spending time here any longer.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Uh-oh...

[Vern Gagne 0]