Tom Delay steps down

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

Maybe so... but I see no good coming out of anyone's mouth in the Senate or House and I see no progress being made...

Take oil prices for example.... no one has grown the balls to build new refineries instead they want to pull the wool over Americans eyes and drill for more oil which 90% of Americans believe is the cause of high gas prices, which is the shortage of oil.

There are so many things to point out it is insane... and I do not see one person actively campaigning with all their power to get these sort of things changed, which is their job is it not?

Do we elect these people into office knowing they are going to suck our tax dollars up and do nothing with them and that is somehow ok with Americans?

What can I as just one America do to change this?

Vote? Doesn't seem like a good option seeing how they all do not meet my expectations of fixing problems.
Write my congressman? What is the point.... all that happens is some college interns write me back... they rarely if ever read them.

Run for office? Right..... against the Billions of dollars the republicans and democrats pissed away during the 2004 elections....

"What can I as just one America do to change this?

Vote? Doesn't seem like a good option seeing how they all do not meet my expectations of fixing problems.
Write my congressman? What is the point.... all that happens is some college interns write me back... they rarely if ever read them.

Run for office? Right..... against the Billions of dollars the republicans and democrats pissed away during the 2004 elections."

No offence, but with an attitude like that. I understand the feeling of hopelessness but i think that is where conviction comes in. It keeps you fighting when you think it is futile. If your gonna give up why not just lay down. Why start a political debate site?

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

No offence, but with an attitude like that. I understand the feeling of hopelessness but i think that is where conviction comes in. It keeps you fighting when you think it is futile. If your gonna give up why not just lay down. Why start a political debate site?

Oh I agree I am just being blunt.

Politicians spend more time defending themselves from attacks than working on problems in this country.

Answer me this:

What is holding this country back from fixing:

Gas Prices
Health Care
Welfare
Social Security
Pure Government waste

for example.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

The Government is holding us back. I mean the people running the **** even while the four year jockeys change. The answer to me is bureucracy. If they would let the private sector handle it, it would get handled. Free enterprise is the key in my eyes.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

The Government is holding us back. I mean the people running the **** even while the four year jockeys change. The answer to me is bureucracy. If they would let the private sector handle it, it would get handled. Free enterprise is the key in my eyes.

There you go... we are getting somewhere now.

How would your government work?

I love this quote in your sig by the way: Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%. - Thomas Jefferson

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

There you go... we are getting somewhere now.

How would your government work?

I love this quote in your sig by the way: Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%. - Thomas Jefferson

First i would change the way money is handled. My wife works for Dept of Military Affairs. She also is a state auditor for tuition assistance for the National Guard among other things. She is the type that makes every state worker look bad! If you standing still get out of her way. Through her i see countless amounts of beurocrap. Huge amounts of money waisted. There are general appropriation for different things that are funded by grants. I'm sure you've heard the story. If they have an over abundance of money expected that fiscal yearend they will hire a person to decide on what to spend the money on. If anything so that specific person can be a sponge for that money. I've seen it thousands of times. My best example would be what would happen if you got a bunch of hotshot corporate yuppies in the government that were used to producing? You'd have a vastly effiecient Government. There is no competition for excellence in government, very unlike the private sector. My wife has accually be verbally repremanded for making others look bad, in other words there lazy, under acchievers. Slow down they tell her, LOL. That's where i would start. There are three people above her in the state. The Gov Bill Richardson, Brig Gen Kenny C Montoya and the A.G. She got there with ethical hardwork and on her own merrit, i wish all government employees made me so proud! She finds buruecrap she stomps it out. I got more ideas but it's getting late.

Thanks on the sig, i kypted it from someone at the Freeper site.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1005/lowry100705.ph

Guilty of Politics?

Tom DeLay might be guilty of something. He might be a ruthless operator. He might be a right-wing zealot. But he almost certainly broke no laws in the case brought against him by Democratic District Attorney Ronnie Earle in Texas.

Liberals loathe Tom DeLay, who embodies all that they hate. But even a Christian pro-life former exterminator from Texas doesn't deserve the abuse to which DeLay is being subjected. Democrats should recall their aversion to the politicized prosecutions from the Clinton years. A prosecutor has enormous power, and unless he wields it properly, he himself becomes an instrument of injustice.

In the Earle case, DeLay seems guilty only of committing politics. In 2002, he spearheaded a Republican takeover of the Texas House that meant Republicans could redraw the state's congressional districts and pick up five seats in 2004. Democrats cried foul, although the redistricting finally brought Texas' congressional delegation more in line with the state's Republican leanings. Immediately after the GOP's 2002 victory, Earle started investigating.

He focused on a transaction between the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). In Texas, it is illegal for corporations to give money to candidates. TRMPAC raised $190,000 from corporations that it sent to RNSEC, which passed it to candidates in states where corporate dollars are legal. Then, RNSEC sent the same amount — or so Earle alleges — to Texas candidates from an account that had been raised from individuals.

Earle says this is a crime, although he is hazy on why. Earle got a grand jury, after six months, to indict DeLay on a conspiracy charge. But it was doubtful whether the Texas conspiracy statute applied to the election code in 2002. Earle then asked another grand jury to indict DeLay on money laundering. It declined, angering Earle. Finally, with the statute of limitations expiring, he got yet another grand jury to do the deed after just hours of deliberation.

Click for the rest.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Quote:

Why didnt they remove it? Due to pressure from Democrats (How they could pressure them is beyond me seeing how they lacked it to begin with.... their only goal was that they knew Tom Delay would be indicted and they wanted him to step down... but I still see no reason they should have had a backbone to pressure the republicans seeing how they did not hold this ethics rule) Had that pressure not been there they would have removed it. It's easy for me to see that.

It doesn't particularly matter to me why they didn't remove it. They didn't, and like I said before, it was there in the first place, unlike the Democrats.

Quote:

One is ethical on paper and one is not in my mind..... that is all that says...

Except the one who was ethical on paper is actually ethical in real life... In case you didn't notice, Tom Delay DID step down. Pe-hoe-si is still there.

Quote:

Possibly.... I can't think for them just use my opinion based on what I take in... meaning they are politicians and are in this for themselves... I have a feeling it was not because Tom Delay was such a great leader they did not want him to step down... but that they did not want the bad media exposure of having their Majority leader step down based on fraud accusations.

That is my take..

My idea was kinda stretched, it was just an idea. I have absolutely no idea. None of us were there, so we don't know. the bad publicity you mentioned sounds like a good reason for them.

1 Reply

@ndjs,

ndjs wrote:

It doesn't particularly matter to me why they didn't remove it. They didn't, and like I said before, it was there in the first place, unlike the Democrats.

The whole reason it was there in the first place was purely politics.

The passed it in 1993 to try to force Dan Rostenkowski (D) into resigning his post on the Ways and Means Committee. He was being investigated for Ethics violation at the time and the purpose of passing this by the republicans was to put pressure on the Democrats to adopt the same "standard" and force him to resign his post.

So I refuse to buy into the one party is more ethical than the other bullshit. They are both in it to make themselves look better and not to improve this country.

Oh.. and if you want to know who the person pushing for this rule to be put into effect in 1993.... it was non other than Tom Delay.

Funny how things come back to bite you in the ass.

Quote:

Except the one who was ethical on paper is actually ethical in real life... In case you didn't notice, Tom Delay DID step down. Pe-hoe-si is still there.

Pelosi did not step down because she was not required to. Honestly, why do you think the republicans were trying to get it removed in the first place? I just can't fathom that it was to be fair to the Democrats because they did not have this rule....

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

But Tom Delay stepped down! Pelosi DIDN'T! I don't see how you can sit there and say they're equally ethical or imply that when it's obvious to me that they aren't behaving as such.

And

Quote:

The whole reason it was there in the first place was purely politics.

it's all politics. Wink

1 Reply

@ndjs,

ndjs wrote:

But Tom Delay stepped down! Pelosi DIDN'T! I don't see how you can sit there and say they're equally ethical or imply that when it's obvious to me that they aren't behaving as such.

Tom Delay HAD to step down... he did not do so under his own will... he was required to step down by the Republican Ethical rule... which leads me to why they were trying to change the rule to begin with... to me I can see that has Tom Delay personally not wanting to step down and trying to make it so he would not have to... I mean that was the whole point in trying to get the rule reversed was it not? So he would not have to step down?????

Quote:

And it's all politics.

Exactly.. which leads me to the above statement about how can one be more ethical than the other if they put politics behind their decisions?

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

I dunno why they wanted to reverse the rule. Sounds like you may be right to me, but i have no idea. I still think that the fact that Rep. rules consider cases like this, and not only do the Dem. rules lack a rule concerning this, one of their leaders was convicted yet remains at her position proves to me that one is more ethical than the other. Delay hasn't been convicted of anything, and the case looks shaky anyhow.

I don't think we're making much headway with each other. I think we should just agree to disagree. Smile

1 Reply

@ndjs,

ndjs wrote:

I dunno why they wanted to reverse the rule. Sounds like you may be right to me, but i have no idea. I still think that the fact that Rep. rules consider cases like this, and not only do the Dem. rules lack a rule concerning this, one of their leaders was convicted yet remains at her position proves to me that one is more ethical than the other. Delay hasn't been convicted of anything, and the case looks shaky anyhow.

I don't think we're making much headway with each other. I think we should just agree to disagree.

Maybe I just can't see either party having any ethical background today... and I can't see the republicans or democrats as being ethical....

I do however tend to agree that the democrats have more "unethical" represenatives in the House and Senate... such as Pelosi... Kennedy... Clinton....

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

^ I suppose that's what i mean when i say one is more ethical than the other.

0 Replies

@NaterG,

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/17/100045.shtml?et=y

Ronnie Earle: DeLay Evidence Missing

The most compelling piece of evidence cited by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to implicate House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in a money laundering and conspiracy case can't be located, Earle's prosecution team admitted on Friday.

Indictments against DeLay and fundraisers Jim Ellis and John Colyandro allege that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002, reports the Houston Chronicle.

The document was touted as proof that DeLay was part of a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But Earle's prosecution team told the court on Friday that they had only a "similar" list and not the one allegedly given to the RNC. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates in Texas, but fewer than half are alleged to have received money as part of the alleged DeLay plot.

______

Click for the rest, all though there wasn't much more.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

*sHoCk*

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

On the news this mourning, sounds like the judge is going to recuse himself for contributing to Move-On.org. He didn't buy a t-shirt but he has made six contributions to left leaning sites. Round one, Delay.

0 Replies

Tom Delay steps down

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know