delay is married to a lobbyist. the new guy blunt blount whatever is married to a lobbyist and the father of a lobbyist. im sure many dems are married to lobbyists. i wish i was married to a lobbyist. goal for 2006 marry a lobbyist.
I keep my fingers crossed that stuff like this happens frequently. I think we're at 65% capacity in the boiler that will eventually explode with all kinds of nationwide disdain for anything Republican. We just need a little bit more!
Face it, Bush's presidency isn't going to improve. Soc. Sec. isn't going to have anything done to it, Iraq isn't going to improve, natural disasters won't be managed all that better, and gas, by the end of his presidency, will probably be around $4 a gallon.
By the end of his run, I hope people will really get hit in the face by how totally failed the last 8 years will have been. God willing, the Republican Party will be crushed and finished for at least a decade.
Following the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, conservatives are left wondering what to make of the charges. The answer is simple. The charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has charged DeLay with conspiracy to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. The alleged violation involved a money swap between the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which DeLay helped found but never managed, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent a check for $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.
Earle is wrong. Before campaign-finance reform, this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap was perfectly legal and happened all the time. In October of 2002, the Texas Democratic party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC.
Also, as former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, “Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?†Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and he’s convinced a grand jury to play along with him.
Nonetheless, at least on the evidence presented so far, the indictment of Mr. DeLay by a state prosecutor in Texas gives us pause. The charge concerns the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay and his aides to orchestrate the GOP's takeover of the Texas legislature in 2002. The issue is whether Mr. DeLay and his political aides illegally used the group to evade the state's ban on corporate contributions to candidates. The indictment alleges that TRMPAC took $155,000 in corporate contributions and then sent a check for $190,000 to the national Republican Party's "soft money" arm. The national committee then wrote $190,000 in checks from its noncorporate accounts to seven Texas candidates. Perhaps most damning, TRMPAC dictated the precise amount and recipients of those donations.
This was an obvious end run around the corporate contribution rule. The more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run -- or, to be more precise, one so blatantly illegal that it amounts to a criminal felony rather than a civil violation. For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.
The only problem is that similar transactions are conducted by both parties in many states, including Texas. In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.
LOVE the money laundering addition to the indictment. If that's the way they are going to get him, that's fine by me.
BTW, the dems won't get anything together, the repubs will really need to fall apart completely to make any ground. Fortunately for us, they are well on their way.
nice work delay.. few things about the Wash Post clips..
its not a problem if dems also did it. the answer is they should also be indicted then.. these types of actions are bad for everyone. not just bad if repubs do it... personally im tired of both parties being elitist and selling off things to their buddies.
two.. the speculation about if delay knew this was illegal always seems funny to me.. my guess is he did know otherwise he probably wouldnt have organized such a strange way to get money from one source to the next through 4 different sources....people set up schemes like that when they know that the contributions arent legal and they want to make it not appear obvious..
Remember Al Capone? He did a lot of bad stuff, but they nailed him for tax evasion.
Tom Delay may have done something that a lot of politicians do on a regular basis, but he has also done so many evil, evil things that I'd be happy watching him go down on a technicality.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay's hopes of reclaiming his post as House majority leader suffered a setback Friday as fellow Republicans called for new leadership in the midst of a congressional corruption scandal.
Days after lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in courtrooms in two cities, a pair of GOP lawmakers circulated a petition calling for elections to pick a permanent replacement for DeLay. The Texas lawmaker temporarily relinquished his leadership post last year following indictment on campaign finance charges in his home state.
Separately, Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., said there was no room in the leadership for DeLay.
SecretIngredient? Remember that scene from “Fast Times at Ridgemont High†“ketchup and mayo? Oh, ours is mustard and mayoâ€
Anyway all y’all just keep whistlin past that grave yard there, or should I say shitter. Down the Shitter! Down the Shitter! All the Pigs Down the Shitter!
Doesn’t matter if it’s true as long as it sticks.
The postman always rings twice, suckas.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay on Saturday abandoned his bid to remain as House majority leader, clearing the way for leadership elections among Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal.
In a letter to rank-and-file Republicans, DeLay said, ''I have always acted in an ethical manner.''
It's too bad the Dems can't come together and win public support without the GOP falling apart and their scandals finally being revealed.. and it's too bad it didn't happen a little over a year ago. But I think a lot of people automatically assume that the Dems have no central message without actually thinking about it.. they do, it may not be as cohesive as it could be, but there's a message there alright if you find it. And personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a bit negative when you're the minority party trying to oust the other party--you've got to convince people that what the majority party is doing is wrong, and you don't do that with rainbows and sunshine. It always killed me too that people got on Kerry's case for being long-winded.. the man was long-winded because he was willing to explain his positions, rather than firing one-liners and talking points like some current US presidents. Anyway, I read somewhere the other day that some Dems are getting fed up with Pelosi (I think this was in an editorial in the ultra-conservative Union Leader, so take with a grain of salt) and her lack of vision. They said that Pelosi won her post in the House based largely on the support of her fellow Californians. Just wondering what folks think of Pelosi and the Dems and their ability to (please!) win back a majority in either house and the presidency in 2008. In good news, anyway, the Republicans here in NH are looking high and low to come up with a candidate to run against wildly popular Democratic Governor John Lynch, apparently the most popular governor in the country. The UL also mentioned the possible "Lynch-ing" of many NH House and Senate members as the Dems hope to gain a majority there. Oh! how I love election years!
I hope none of you are AIA members, or its a case of the pot calling the kettle black. There are few larger lobbying organizations larger than the AIA and construction/architecture related organizations. Your dues at work, accomplishing such benefits as the ARE, IDP, and every insane code you've had to deal with.
God willing, the Republican Party will be crushed and finished for at least a decade.
the process is much slower. the gop's downfall began by gathering voters indiscriminately with michael savage and wannabes.
this eventually leads to their destruction, because the gop is left with predominantly mindless borg voters, who will stay republican for the rest of their lives (even if their lives are ended by a republican death squad, those borgs are semper foo)
political groups and fads are much like a drug addicts. they go really high, but neglect the basics of survival (such as eating food). then their bodies crash while the addicts think they're still flying high.
republicans are going to continue sliding slowly downward in overall popularity for about 25 or 30 years.
The tone of this discussion leads me to believe that most of you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and the attitude of hating Republicans is just a leftoever of your education when it was cool to become a bleeding heart liberal or, God help us, you naturally think this way.
In my opinion, it is the Democratic party that is crumbling- from the inside, outside and everywhere else. They haven't had power for about 40 years and will do anything to do it. The only play left in their playbook is character assassination. The dems found a loophole in one of the few altruistic rules in Washington. If a Republican is indicted they must step down from a leadership position. Therefore, they found a complete crackpot, Ronnie Earle, who went through as many grand juries as he needed to get a ridiculous indictment, so DeLay would step down. Everybody knows he wont be convicted, but in their eyes they 'won' with just an indictment. This is politics at its worst. Get a grip, even the democrats promoting it know its bullshit. Democrats are an unhappy group of people whose only selling point is to convince people that they should be ashamed to be American and everything around us is wrong and bad. People are tired of hearing that message, especially when times AREN'T BAD no matter how you slice it.
With Iran openly developing nuclear weapons and Red China stepping up to the plate as the next world superpower, this is no time to be praying for the return of the party of apathy. Iraq is going WELL. Soldiers dying is not proof that we are losing, soldiers die in war that is how it is. They are brave and deserve more respect. Short-sighted democrats don't care about anything except getting back in power, so they constantly preach that Iraq is a disaster. Our generation, especially those in this discussion, have a distorted sense of time and don't want to be part of anything that can't be solved instantly over the internet. Wars take time, wars that will change the World if won take more time.
To think that one party is actually good, and one is the 'enemy' is ignorant. The system is corrupt, but one can be a better solution for the times than the other. The Republican Party is that party now, and will be for a long time.
The unviversal, do-nothing apologist, who believes anybody who claims they are underprivliged is so. Advocate of zero accountability for what a person does, blamer of society's ills on everybody except those who obviously precipitate them. Someone so concerned with being liked and not placing blame on anybody, that they fail to solve or even recognize problems around us. Often times, paired with severe secularism.
I am certain that we could do well in just about any country we fight but shouldn't risking the lives of young men and women have a purpose?
They are brave and deserve more respect... correct.
But isn't the greatest respect is for them to put thier lives in danger and to ultimately give up there lives for a reason the only respect that matters.
I am waiting for the bledeing heart liberal difinition to find out if i qualify.
There is a dangerous strain within the republican party that is selling a culture of paranoia and fear. It is a constant of politics and governess that you can get people to vote for anything if you scare them.
The problem with this is that when the boogeyman really comes you need to be able to really help people and to often this is where the Republican party fails. You can't tear down goverment and then ramp up the beurocracy when the time comes on a moments notice. Government at it basic level is an agreement to work togeter for some common uderstanding, some common good.
We are there, because to protect western civilization as a whole, we must change the political climate of the middle east. Theocracies don't work, and democracies (even practical democracies like the UK) don't go to war with each other.
Iraq is a logical choice as a starting place to make this change, because they were the most aggressive, had been given and ignored the most acts of diplomacy, and their religion was the least engrained into their political system (Saddam was not a religious man, in fact he was not at all until he suddenly became one years ago as a publicity stunt to gain support from religious Iraqis). The first middle eastern democracy has the best chance of coming into fruition in Iraq.
Yes we are fighting terrorists, but on a larger scale: we are trying to change the reasons there are terrorists and that will take time. It is more than just hunting down and killing bad guys (which we do) it is altering thousands of years of violence and terrorism as a way of life.
Definition-
Someone who cares about thier fellow man and is huble enough to know that but for the grace of god go I .
Someone who understands that if any part of our society is under served, underprivliged and under apreciated tht we all suffer.
Someone who holds people accountable for thier actions.
Someone who understands that thier are inherent barriers to people
who want to escape form ties that bind them and it far more profitable to have a productive human being in society than to deal witth the problems of the option.
Someone who knows that one constant of war is that old farts send young men and women to die for reasons other than the truth.
Someone who questions thier government.
Someone who demand the truth.
Someone who throws crooks in jail.
Someone who once these crooks have paid thier debt gives them an opportunity, because it is cheaper to have a productive member of society than to deal with them otherwise.
I am certain thier is a job dELAY CAN FIND WNEH HE GETS OUT OF THE klink THAT WILL KEEP HIM OUT OF TROUBL;E....
It is highly questionable whether by invading Iraq we have done anything to promote US interests. World opinion of the United States has dropped precipitiously since the Iraq invasion, and while without question the US is killing off anti-American interests, our divisive foreigh policy and unilateralism seems to be creating that number and more. Before the war, there were no terrorists in Iraq. Now they are pervasive, and 2,214 of our citizens are dead.
If it was the US governments intention to change the political climate in the Middle East, it is surprising that it has effectively abdicated any role negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. By all accounts, until we invaded Iraq, that was the issue that was polarizing opinion amongst Muslims and allowing fringe elements to radicalize members of the general populace.
No doubt that democracy is the preferred form of government, but looking around the Arab world there is not one of our allies that is a true democracy (Turkey not being an Arab state). In no case have I seen any evidence that we care to change that. We've repeatedly over the years propped up dictators to suit our short term interests, and our association with such regimes has allowed marginalized religious and ethnic minorities to become increasingly militant and anti-American.
And to get back on topic, Delay's indictment was handed down by a grand jury - not any single individual. Not a politically motivated judge or district attorney, but an impartial panel of 25 citizens.
This isn't the same thing as saying he is guilty, just that there is compelling enough evidence to bring the charges to court. His guilt or innocence will be settled by trial or settlement.
If an example works to your ends it is just that, if I provide one that addresses all of the nifty, melodramatic bullshit you post, well..then it's an anecdote.
If the terrorists were enemies of Iraq, why would they be pouring over the borders to fight us there. Might that mean that we could accomplish something there that would hurt all of them?
In response to your increased agitation, and as a personal slam: Take a typing class, brush up on your grammar and calm down. It doen't help any argument to be presented by a third-grader.
Janosh,
Again I think that the world is not looking at the long-term. Of course what you say about propping up certain groups is true, but what if this new line of action is part of the solution to that habit. The fact that anti-American sentiment is on the rise is not surprising. We are the only superpower in the World today. We are finally acting like it. I don't think it's wrong to do so. On any scale, if there is a clear leader there will be those who are envious of it.
Thanks-
Janosh I am simply steamed.
He stands accused and desrves a fair and just trial.
RE(....We are there, because to protect western civilization as a whole, we must change the political climate of the middle east. Theocracies don't work....)
My last diversion is to say that there are two theocracies in the world.
IRAQ and the VATICAN we didn't attack them.
Tom Delay is a bastard, pure and simple. My reasons for wanting him to go down in a ball of flames surpass politics. I think he is corrupt and reprehensible. Here are 10 reasons why:
1) "So many minority youths had volunteered, that there was
literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." --Tom DeLay,
explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice
Presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War.
2) "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" --Tom Delay,
to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the
Astrodome in Houston, Sept.9,2005.
3) "I AM the federal government." --Tom DeLay, to the owner of
Ruth's Chris Steak House, after being told to put out his cigar
because of federal government regulations banning smoking in the
building, May 14,2003.
4) "We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power." -Tom
DeLay, explaining why America must topple Saddam Hussein in 2002
interview with Fox News.
5) "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting
taxes." --Tom DeLay, March 12, 2003.
6) "Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The
causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids
into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and
Working mothers who take birth control pills." --Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999.
7) "A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide
structure. To provide stability. Not that a woman can't provide
stability, I'm not saying that... It does take a father,
though." --Tom DeLay, in a radio interview, Feb. 10, 2004.
8) "I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I
think the Constitution is very clear. The only separation is
that there will not be a government church." --Tom DeLay (date
unspecified)
9) "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on
$4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist.
Fortunately, such families do not exist." --Tom DeLay, during a
debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage, April 23,
1996.
10) "I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My
Job is the Constitution of the United States, I am not a Government employee. I am in the Constitution." --Tom DeLay, in a CNN
interview, Dec. 19, 1995.
9) "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on
$4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist.
Fortunately, such families do not exist." --Tom DeLay, during a
debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage, April 23,
1996.
man, that sounds like the work of the onion.
must be hard being a satirist when the real thing is so much worse than anything you could come up with
mmm, but voters are fated to shift back and forth. the republicans idealogy is as bankrupt as it's ever been, yet voters began shifting toward republicans in the late 70's. Politics is always mostly "hypocritical" hype. being correct or being beneficial to the general good is virtually irrelevant to gaining power.
Tommmm DEEEEEELLLaaayyyyy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
But I won't be chipper until I see him in one of them 1930's striped prison suits (they do that in Texas, don't they?).
delay is married to a lobbyist. the new guy blunt blount whatever is married to a lobbyist and the father of a lobbyist. im sure many dems are married to lobbyists. i wish i was married to a lobbyist. goal for 2006 marry a lobbyist.
lobbyists are sooo twentieth century,
i want to see congressional votes for sale on e-bay.
are lobbyists named after the room or is the room named after the lobbyists?
architecture, word.
i think we should hang the bastard, not that i really know or care what he did...
but i think the entire GOP is going down the shitter...
I keep my fingers crossed that stuff like this happens frequently. I think we're at 65% capacity in the boiler that will eventually explode with all kinds of nationwide disdain for anything Republican. We just need a little bit more!
Face it, Bush's presidency isn't going to improve. Soc. Sec. isn't going to have anything done to it, Iraq isn't going to improve, natural disasters won't be managed all that better, and gas, by the end of his presidency, will probably be around $4 a gallon.
By the end of his run, I hope people will really get hit in the face by how totally failed the last 8 years will have been. God willing, the Republican Party will be crushed and finished for at least a decade.
From the editors of National Review:
Following the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, conservatives are left wondering what to make of the charges. The answer is simple. The charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has charged DeLay with conspiracy to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. The alleged violation involved a money swap between the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which DeLay helped found but never managed, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent a check for $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.
Earle is wrong. Before campaign-finance reform, this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap was perfectly legal and happened all the time. In October of 2002, the Texas Democratic party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC.
Also, as former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, “Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?†Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and he’s convinced a grand jury to play along with him.
From the editors of the Washington Post:
Nonetheless, at least on the evidence presented so far, the indictment of Mr. DeLay by a state prosecutor in Texas gives us pause. The charge concerns the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay and his aides to orchestrate the GOP's takeover of the Texas legislature in 2002. The issue is whether Mr. DeLay and his political aides illegally used the group to evade the state's ban on corporate contributions to candidates. The indictment alleges that TRMPAC took $155,000 in corporate contributions and then sent a check for $190,000 to the national Republican Party's "soft money" arm. The national committee then wrote $190,000 in checks from its noncorporate accounts to seven Texas candidates. Perhaps most damning, TRMPAC dictated the precise amount and recipients of those donations.
This was an obvious end run around the corporate contribution rule. The more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run -- or, to be more precise, one so blatantly illegal that it amounts to a criminal felony rather than a civil violation. For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.
The only problem is that similar transactions are conducted by both parties in many states, including Texas. In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.
I'd like to add: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ... Money Laundering .... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Here's the Fox News headline. Hahahaha ... Fox News ...
lets hope the dems can get their shit together...
LOVE the money laundering addition to the indictment. If that's the way they are going to get him, that's fine by me.
BTW, the dems won't get anything together, the repubs will really need to fall apart completely to make any ground. Fortunately for us, they are well on their way.
nice work delay.. few things about the Wash Post clips..
its not a problem if dems also did it. the answer is they should also be indicted then.. these types of actions are bad for everyone. not just bad if repubs do it... personally im tired of both parties being elitist and selling off things to their buddies.
two.. the speculation about if delay knew this was illegal always seems funny to me.. my guess is he did know otherwise he probably wouldnt have organized such a strange way to get money from one source to the next through 4 different sources....people set up schemes like that when they know that the contributions arent legal and they want to make it not appear obvious..
hey, just heard that maggie thatcher is being questioned in relation to this. i tells ya, itd make my year if the old hag went down
the outer circle crumbles, then the inner circle.
let's start a pool - who's next? frist? scooter libby? rove?
Rove, oh please, please, please
Remember Al Capone? He did a lot of bad stuff, but they nailed him for tax evasion.
Tom Delay may have done something that a lot of politicians do on a regular basis, but he has also done so many evil, evil things that I'd be happy watching him go down on a technicality.
WonderK "they're well on their way" sounds way too much like mission accomplished what do you guys think?
Huh? I'm not wearing a flight suit, if that's what you're wondering....
He looks as guilty as a rapist does.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 6, 2006
Filed at 4:50 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay's hopes of reclaiming his post as House majority leader suffered a setback Friday as fellow Republicans called for new leadership in the midst of a congressional corruption scandal.
Days after lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in courtrooms in two cities, a pair of GOP lawmakers circulated a petition calling for elections to pick a permanent replacement for DeLay. The Texas lawmaker temporarily relinquished his leadership post last year following indictment on campaign finance charges in his home state.
Separately, Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., said there was no room in the leadership for DeLay.
SecretIngredient? Remember that scene from “Fast Times at Ridgemont High†“ketchup and mayo? Oh, ours is mustard and mayoâ€
Anyway all y’all just keep whistlin past that grave yard there, or should I say shitter. Down the Shitter! Down the Shitter! All the Pigs Down the Shitter!
Doesn’t matter if it’s true as long as it sticks.
The postman always rings twice, suckas.
Is there a marriage in the making? Tom Delay and Martha Stewart?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay on Saturday abandoned his bid to remain as House majority leader, clearing the way for leadership elections among Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal.
In a letter to rank-and-file Republicans, DeLay said, ''I have always acted in an ethical manner.''
It's too bad the Dems can't come together and win public support without the GOP falling apart and their scandals finally being revealed.. and it's too bad it didn't happen a little over a year ago. But I think a lot of people automatically assume that the Dems have no central message without actually thinking about it.. they do, it may not be as cohesive as it could be, but there's a message there alright if you find it. And personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a bit negative when you're the minority party trying to oust the other party--you've got to convince people that what the majority party is doing is wrong, and you don't do that with rainbows and sunshine. It always killed me too that people got on Kerry's case for being long-winded.. the man was long-winded because he was willing to explain his positions, rather than firing one-liners and talking points like some current US presidents. Anyway, I read somewhere the other day that some Dems are getting fed up with Pelosi (I think this was in an editorial in the ultra-conservative Union Leader, so take with a grain of salt) and her lack of vision. They said that Pelosi won her post in the House based largely on the support of her fellow Californians. Just wondering what folks think of Pelosi and the Dems and their ability to (please!) win back a majority in either house and the presidency in 2008. In good news, anyway, the Republicans here in NH are looking high and low to come up with a candidate to run against wildly popular Democratic Governor John Lynch, apparently the most popular governor in the country. The UL also mentioned the possible "Lynch-ing" of many NH House and Senate members as the Dems hope to gain a majority there. Oh! how I love election years!
I hope none of you are AIA members, or its a case of the pot calling the kettle black. There are few larger lobbying organizations larger than the AIA and construction/architecture related organizations. Your dues at work, accomplishing such benefits as the ARE, IDP, and every insane code you've had to deal with.
Keep the money flowing
Damn I'm excited to see him self-destruct. It would be even better if he got voted out this fall. There is an outside chance of this happening.
the process is much slower. the gop's downfall began by gathering voters indiscriminately with michael savage and wannabes.
this eventually leads to their destruction, because the gop is left with predominantly mindless borg voters, who will stay republican for the rest of their lives (even if their lives are ended by a republican death squad, those borgs are semper foo)
political groups and fads are much like a drug addicts. they go really high, but neglect the basics of survival (such as eating food). then their bodies crash while the addicts think they're still flying high.
republicans are going to continue sliding slowly downward in overall popularity for about 25 or 30 years.
Wonder where he will go on vacation, when he leaves Washington?
The tone of this discussion leads me to believe that most of you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and the attitude of hating Republicans is just a leftoever of your education when it was cool to become a bleeding heart liberal or, God help us, you naturally think this way.
In my opinion, it is the Democratic party that is crumbling- from the inside, outside and everywhere else. They haven't had power for about 40 years and will do anything to do it. The only play left in their playbook is character assassination. The dems found a loophole in one of the few altruistic rules in Washington. If a Republican is indicted they must step down from a leadership position. Therefore, they found a complete crackpot, Ronnie Earle, who went through as many grand juries as he needed to get a ridiculous indictment, so DeLay would step down. Everybody knows he wont be convicted, but in their eyes they 'won' with just an indictment. This is politics at its worst. Get a grip, even the democrats promoting it know its bullshit. Democrats are an unhappy group of people whose only selling point is to convince people that they should be ashamed to be American and everything around us is wrong and bad. People are tired of hearing that message, especially when times AREN'T BAD no matter how you slice it.
With Iran openly developing nuclear weapons and Red China stepping up to the plate as the next world superpower, this is no time to be praying for the return of the party of apathy. Iraq is going WELL. Soldiers dying is not proof that we are losing, soldiers die in war that is how it is. They are brave and deserve more respect. Short-sighted democrats don't care about anything except getting back in power, so they constantly preach that Iraq is a disaster. Our generation, especially those in this discussion, have a distorted sense of time and don't want to be part of anything that can't be solved instantly over the internet. Wars take time, wars that will change the World if won take more time.
To think that one party is actually good, and one is the 'enemy' is ignorant. The system is corrupt, but one can be a better solution for the times than the other. The Republican Party is that party now, and will be for a long time.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL?
If we are doing well in IRAQ or not is debateable, but why are we there?
Is to fight the Terrowrists?
( the BUSH accent is implied)
The unviversal, do-nothing apologist, who believes anybody who claims they are underprivliged is so. Advocate of zero accountability for what a person does, blamer of society's ills on everybody except those who obviously precipitate them. Someone so concerned with being liked and not placing blame on anybody, that they fail to solve or even recognize problems around us. Often times, paired with severe secularism.
How do you?
I am certain that we could do well in just about any country we fight but shouldn't risking the lives of young men and women have a purpose?
They are brave and deserve more respect... correct.
But isn't the greatest respect is for them to put thier lives in danger and to ultimately give up there lives for a reason the only respect that matters.
I am waiting for the bledeing heart liberal difinition to find out if i qualify.
There is a dangerous strain within the republican party that is selling a culture of paranoia and fear. It is a constant of politics and governess that you can get people to vote for anything if you scare them.
The problem with this is that when the boogeyman really comes you need to be able to really help people and to often this is where the Republican party fails. You can't tear down goverment and then ramp up the beurocracy when the time comes on a moments notice. Government at it basic level is an agreement to work togeter for some common uderstanding, some common good.
montu:
We are there, because to protect western civilization as a whole, we must change the political climate of the middle east. Theocracies don't work, and democracies (even practical democracies like the UK) don't go to war with each other.
Iraq is a logical choice as a starting place to make this change, because they were the most aggressive, had been given and ignored the most acts of diplomacy, and their religion was the least engrained into their political system (Saddam was not a religious man, in fact he was not at all until he suddenly became one years ago as a publicity stunt to gain support from religious Iraqis). The first middle eastern democracy has the best chance of coming into fruition in Iraq.
Yes we are fighting terrorists, but on a larger scale: we are trying to change the reasons there are terrorists and that will take time. It is more than just hunting down and killing bad guys (which we do) it is altering thousands of years of violence and terrorism as a way of life.
Well put 3ifs, spoken like a true ignorant liberal junky. If you don't know, don't say anything; you make your compadres look stupid by association.
Definition-
Someone who cares about thier fellow man and is huble enough to know that but for the grace of god go I .
Someone who understands that if any part of our society is under served, underprivliged and under apreciated tht we all suffer.
Someone who holds people accountable for thier actions.
Someone who understands that thier are inherent barriers to people
who want to escape form ties that bind them and it far more profitable to have a productive human being in society than to deal witth the problems of the option.
Someone who knows that one constant of war is that old farts send young men and women to die for reasons other than the truth.
Someone who questions thier government.
Someone who demand the truth.
Someone who throws crooks in jail.
Someone who once these crooks have paid thier debt gives them an opportunity, because it is cheaper to have a productive member of society than to deal with them otherwise.
I am certain thier is a job dELAY CAN FIND WNEH HE GETS OUT OF THE klink THAT WILL KEEP HIM OUT OF TROUBL;E....
...Someone who sentences a man who rapes a 10 year old for 4 years
to six days in jail as long as he receives counseling
*google "Judge Edward Cashman"
*sixty (60) days in jail, my apologies
we are trying to change the reasons there are terrorists ...
This is the this is the dumbist thing I have ever read.
You don't have a clue..
Think for your self man. Put the talking points down.
What does going in to IRAQ have to with terrorism?
The so called terrorists and SADDAM where enemies.
You were lied to and just like every other republican apolgist you don't want to give it up and deal with reality.
WAKE UP!
Anecdotal---
There are bad decisions everywhere and you don't know what is politics were.
You simpy can't put people in jail for life for every crime there has to be an option..... We as a society can't affod it finacialy and morally
So this is where true governess comes in to play. The boggeyman problem I spoke about..
Do you attempt to create a productive member of society.
To you Kill him and get rid of the problem
Do you jail him for life.
The length of the sentance is a seperate isuue
clearly neither of us is equiped to discuss.
It is highly questionable whether by invading Iraq we have done anything to promote US interests. World opinion of the United States has dropped precipitiously since the Iraq invasion, and while without question the US is killing off anti-American interests, our divisive foreigh policy and unilateralism seems to be creating that number and more. Before the war, there were no terrorists in Iraq. Now they are pervasive, and 2,214 of our citizens are dead.
If it was the US governments intention to change the political climate in the Middle East, it is surprising that it has effectively abdicated any role negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. By all accounts, until we invaded Iraq, that was the issue that was polarizing opinion amongst Muslims and allowing fringe elements to radicalize members of the general populace.
No doubt that democracy is the preferred form of government, but looking around the Arab world there is not one of our allies that is a true democracy (Turkey not being an Arab state). In no case have I seen any evidence that we care to change that. We've repeatedly over the years propped up dictators to suit our short term interests, and our association with such regimes has allowed marginalized religious and ethnic minorities to become increasingly militant and anti-American.
And to get back on topic, Delay's indictment was handed down by a grand jury - not any single individual. Not a politically motivated judge or district attorney, but an impartial panel of 25 citizens.
This isn't the same thing as saying he is guilty, just that there is compelling enough evidence to bring the charges to court. His guilt or innocence will be settled by trial or settlement.
If an example works to your ends it is just that, if I provide one that addresses all of the nifty, melodramatic bullshit you post, well..then it's an anecdote.
If the terrorists were enemies of Iraq, why would they be pouring over the borders to fight us there. Might that mean that we could accomplish something there that would hurt all of them?
In response to your increased agitation, and as a personal slam: Take a typing class, brush up on your grammar and calm down. It doen't help any argument to be presented by a third-grader.
Janosh,
Again I think that the world is not looking at the long-term. Of course what you say about propping up certain groups is true, but what if this new line of action is part of the solution to that habit. The fact that anti-American sentiment is on the rise is not surprising. We are the only superpower in the World today. We are finally acting like it. I don't think it's wrong to do so. On any scale, if there is a clear leader there will be those who are envious of it.
Thanks-
Janosh I am simply steamed.
He stands accused and desrves a fair and just trial.
RE(....We are there, because to protect western civilization as a whole, we must change the political climate of the middle east. Theocracies don't work....)
My last diversion is to say that there are two theocracies in the world.
IRAQ and the VATICAN we didn't attack them.
Granted ...on the typing thing.
it's mourning in amerika...
Tom Delay is a bastard, pure and simple. My reasons for wanting him to go down in a ball of flames surpass politics. I think he is corrupt and reprehensible. Here are 10 reasons why:
1) "So many minority youths had volunteered, that there was
literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." --Tom DeLay,
explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice
Presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War.
2) "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" --Tom Delay,
to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the
Astrodome in Houston, Sept.9,2005.
3) "I AM the federal government." --Tom DeLay, to the owner of
Ruth's Chris Steak House, after being told to put out his cigar
because of federal government regulations banning smoking in the
building, May 14,2003.
4) "We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power." -Tom
DeLay, explaining why America must topple Saddam Hussein in 2002
interview with Fox News.
5) "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting
taxes." --Tom DeLay, March 12, 2003.
6) "Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The
causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids
into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and
Working mothers who take birth control pills." --Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999.
7) "A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide
structure. To provide stability. Not that a woman can't provide
stability, I'm not saying that... It does take a father,
though." --Tom DeLay, in a radio interview, Feb. 10, 2004.
8) "I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I
think the Constitution is very clear. The only separation is
that there will not be a government church." --Tom DeLay (date
unspecified)
9) "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on
$4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist.
Fortunately, such families do not exist." --Tom DeLay, during a
debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage, April 23,
1996.
10) "I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My
Job is the Constitution of the United States, I am not a Government employee. I am in the Constitution." --Tom DeLay, in a CNN
interview, Dec. 19, 1995.
9) "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on
$4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist.
Fortunately, such families do not exist." --Tom DeLay, during a
debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage, April 23,
1996.
man, that sounds like the work of the onion.
must be hard being a satirist when the real thing is so much worse than anything you could come up with
mmm, but voters are fated to shift back and forth. the republicans idealogy is as bankrupt as it's ever been, yet voters began shifting toward republicans in the late 70's. Politics is always mostly "hypocritical" hype. being correct or being beneficial to the general good is virtually irrelevant to gaining power.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.