Should DeLay resign

edgarblythe wrote:

The examples mysteryman brings up are superfluous. Ed Kennedy? Settled long ago, whether or not one agrees with the resolution. Clinton? He has already been punished/harrassed and is beyond the fray. Byrd? He recognized the error of racism many years ago, confessed his wrong-ness and changed his ways. DeLay continues with his shady activities and refuses to recognize his crimes, at least publicly.

I bring Clinton up because he was the last President,and a known base of comparison.

Tell me,exactly what crimes has DeLay been CONVICTED of?
What legal authority brought him to trial,and what were the charges?
Since all of you are saying he is guilty,what was he found guilty of,and when was he convicted?

0 Replies

You miss the obvious, mm - DeLay is a notorious, self-admitted Republican, not only in a position of power and influence covetted by Democrats but effective in that position. Clearly, he's a threat to free-ride politics, and he is a key figure among those dedicated to the preposterous notion of maintainin' American sovereignty and world pre-emminence.

0 Replies

kelticwizard said:

Quote:

But given the present state of campaign financing, yes I confess: I can't get worked up about a few thousand dollars for a plane trip from a lobbyist. Not when everyone from the President to the newest freshman Representative is hitting up lobbyists for vast sums of money for the campaign chest every election cycle.

kw

I understand how one could argue that the fellow poking his finger into the dyke could seema tad irrelevant given that a bulldozer is digging out the same dyke a mile upstream. And there is something of the Sisyphus curse in citizens fighting corruption eternally. Campaign finance reform obstacles seem a fine example of all this.

But whatever we can do to inhibit or reverse lobbyists buying legislative favors, we ought to do it.

0 Replies

DeLay is the majority leader in the House. The majority of members of the House are Republicans. To say that Democrats are after him for his "coveted" position of power, one which no Democrat currently can occupy, is nothing more than silliness.

Many Americans justifiably object to "maintainin' American sovereignty and world pre-eminence" over the corpses of young American men and women. That was the most disgusting part of your post, Big Bird, the casual implication that America has any sovereignty issues in the current war, and that the current war is justified in the context of maintaining "world pre-emminence." It is, however, and probably unintentionally, honest--none of the old song and dance about WoMD, and aiding terrorists.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
The examples mysteryman brings up are superfluous. Ed Kennedy? Settled long ago, whether or not one agrees with the resolution. Clinton? He has already been punished/harrassed and is beyond the fray. Byrd? He recognized the error of racism many years ago, confessed his wrong-ness and changed his ways. DeLay continues with his shady activities and refuses to recognize his crimes, at least publicly.

I bring Clinton up because he was the last President,and a known base of comparison.

Tell me,exactly what crimes has DeLay been CONVICTED of?
What legal authority brought him to trial,and what were the charges?
Since all of you are saying he is guilty,what was he found guilty of,and when was he convicted?

I didn't say he was guilty. I suspect he is, and likely far moreso than we'll ever know. But ethics rules and investigations of possible violations of those rules exist for a reason. And investigations proceed following suspicion. We'll note that aside from these recent matters, Delay was censured three times previously by a bipartisan ethics committee. The general consensus, even held by republican supporters such as David Brooks, is that the ethics committee rule changes were pushed through specifically to attempt a safeguard for Delay against investigation.

As to going after someone simply because they are powerful or effective (timber's suggestion above) that's often the way the game is played - eg Daschle. That part is almost a given. But it is simple enough to look past that and concentrate on whether the fellow or fellowess in question is MORE THAN a strategic target - as when members of his own party move to investigate, criticize or oust.

0 Replies

G'mornin' Set - and G'mornin' to you, too, blatham. Glad to see the two of ya up and at it. I gotta agree with blatham, there, but I just can't get to where you're comin' from Set, or head off in the direction you're goin'. I think it good that the majority of the electorate ain't with ya, either.

0 Replies

I see you're sidestepping, Big Bird, your gaffe about "coveted position." The Democrats haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of getting one of their own elected, so the contention that this is about them seeking a "coveted position" is laughable.

As for the rest of it, i'm just content to see a conservative honestly state the real reasons for this nasty little war, regardless of how you respond.

0 Replies

Excellent point re Daschle, blatham. Pretty much the same sorta trick. I sorta doubt, however, that DeLay is gonna suffer much - and I figure that's gonna just further irritate The Dems.

0 Replies

Not sidesteppin' a thing, Set - the Dems covet the power they've persuaded The Electorate to strip from them and hand to the Republicans.

As for the rest of it, I'll note my position re The War on Terror and Iraq's central position in that effort have been consistent all along on these boards. That I'm a critic of the WMD focus of The Administration's sales effort in regard to the Iraq intervention is no secret. I count that an inexcuseable blunder.

0 Replies

Perhaps, then, Big Bird, you ought to have been more careful in what you wrote: " . . . in a position of power and influence covetted by Democrats . . . "--given that the position of power and influence which DeLay occupies is one to which Democrats cannot currently aspire, you might see my original objection to your statement. But, of course, as you've now modified your statement, i withdraw the objection.

" . . . the Dems covet the power they've persuaded The Electorate to strip from them and hand to the Republicans . . . "

Now that is truly hilarious, but especially in that it suggests that the Republicans did not get their majority based upon merit, but simply the ineptitude of the Democrats--i'll go along with that.

0 Replies

I think set might be suggesting that America's autonomy is under no conceivable threat from the black helicopters or french people and that world dominance is a fool's mission.

Quote:

"It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one." (Hofstadter)

Quote:

"America had the infinite priviledge of fulfilling her destiny and saving the world." (Woodrow Wilson)

Quote:

"The German alone...can be a patriot; he alone can for the sake of his nation encompass the whole of mankind; contrasted with him from now on, the patriotism of every other nation must be egoistic, narrow and hostile to the rest of mankind." (Johann Gottlieb Fichte, early 20th century)

Quote:

Russians are "the only God-bearing people on earth, destined to regenerate and save the world." (Dostoyevsky)

Quote:

France is intended by Providence to enjoy/suffer "an eminent and exceptional destiny." (De Gaulle)

Quote:

"Nations, as individuals, who are completely innocent in their own esteem, are insufferable in their human contacts." (Niebuhr)

Quote:

"This belief in national sinlessness, like all such beliefs, contributes greatly to America's crowning sin of Pride - the first deadly sin and, in medieval Catholic theology, the one from which all other sins originally stem." (Anatol Lieven)

Quote:

"And if we're an arrogan nation, they'll view us that way. But if we're a humble nation they'll respect us as an honorable nation." (GWBush in debate with Al Gore)

0 Replies

I haven't modified a thing, Set - and another "No Secret", consistent aspect of my ramblin's here has been my contention the Dems have no one to blame for the Repubs' successes but themselves. I don't hold the Repubs to be blameless paragons, but rather see them as the less-objectionable alternative. Its a sorry choice all the way around, but I feel strongly that things could and would be worse if the Dems had not become so successful at talkin' themselves out of office.

0 Replies

come gather round people
wherever you roam...etc

0 Replies

<chuckle>

You're in fine form this mornin', Bern.

0 Replies

It was that lascivious dream of me and Oliver North (he was bottom) I noted on another thread. He gives me reason to live.

0 Replies

and my daughter, who I've missed terribly, is here visiting.

0 Replies

Tell her I said "Hi". Haven't seen my daughter in a couple years, though she, spouse and offspring appear likely to descend on Timberland for a summer sojourn this year. I'm really lookin' forward to that - even though it means that for the duration of the visit the better booze and beer will be stashed outta harm's way.

0 Replies

MM wrote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
parados,
This came out during the campaign,and Kerry didnt deny it.
And,since it was on a NATIONAL news show,it would be impossible for him to deny it.

But,for your education,here it is...
http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

This is from the History News Network...
"On May 6, 2001 Tim Russert interviewed Senator John Kerry on Meet the Press. In the course of the interview, Mr. Russert asked the senator about his views on Vietnam"...

..."There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed"...

Now,dont take my word for it,go read it yourself.

In case you failed to NOTICE MM, the quote is from 1971.. You left out this little FACT "Audiotape, April 18, 1971" It is NOT from the campaign. Russert asked Kerry about his 1971 statement in 2001. That is NOT "from the campaign".. Geez. Thanks for providing evidence to prove your claim was WRONG.

You stated, "Kerry admitted to war crimes during the campaign,or do you not remember that? "

As I said then and say again.. You don't have much of a grasp on facts.

0 Replies

Kerry made the statement in '71, yes. He has not since repudiated that statement, or the sentiment behind it, nor has he ever acknowledged, let alone repudiated, the aid and comfort he provided an enemy in time of war while himself under oath and commission to this Nation and her military. Kerry can be considered a hero only by those who admire traitors.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kerry made the statement in '71, yes. He has not since repudiated that statement, or the sentiment behind it, nor has he ever acknowledged, let alone repudiated, the aid and comfort he provided an enemy in time of war while himself under oath and commission to this Nation and her military. Kerry can be considered a hero only by those who admire traitors.

Timber, that is an opinion that seems to be getting close to being expressed as if it was fact. "Aid and comfort" is your opinion vs the 200 years of legal precedence. As long as you keep it as opinion, I'll refrain from hitting you over the head with the constitution. ;-)

MM claimed it as fact that Kerry said he committed war crimes during the time of the campaign. I pointed out he is a little light on facts when he made that claim along with several others. MM is free to have his opinions, he is NOT free to claim his opinion is "fact".

0 Replies

Should DeLay resign

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know