Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Sep 30 2005, 05:07 PM)
I -am- thinking of the Controlled Substances Act, and thinking that the CSA is unconstitutional, an excessive elasticity of the commerce clause.
[right][snapback]132307[/snapback][/right]


Well, alrighty then, but as things stand presently there are plenty of 'federal crimes' involved here.
Spot
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Sep 30 2005, 06:11 PM)
I don't see how either party is, at present, of benefit to anyone either.

That said, Republicans, pre-1980, used to stand for "fiscal responsibility" (meaning, balanced budgets, you cut spending or raise taxes), limited Federal gubmint (meaning states get to regulate, separately, anything not enumerated in the Constitution as being Federal responsibilities), careful foreign policy, and vigorous resistance to any encroachment on the Bill of Rights.

Is there something in that agenda you can't be on board with?
[right][snapback]132310[/snapback][/right]


I'd have to look at the bill of rights again. You will forgive me if I didn't get a great education in government.

But in general I can agree with limited Federal "gubmint".

Must get some din din if I'm to return later. smile.gif
davis¹³
user posted image
Bee
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Oct 1 2005, 09:04 AM)
user posted image
[right][snapback]132451[/snapback][/right]


Yep.

What DeLay did changed the balance of power in Texas and in Congress. It was against our principles of free elections.

Whatever spin you want to employ about "legality" is entirely beside the point. The results of what he did are deplorable. And un-American.

mad.gif
SpaceCowboy
Tell us again why the GOP isn't the party of corporate power.

I think I need to hear that one more time.
Bee
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Oct 1 2005, 10:31 AM)
Tell us again why the GOP isn't the party of corporate power.

I think I need to hear that one more time.
[right][snapback]132489[/snapback][/right]




???????????????
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 1 2005, 09:34 AM)
???????????????
[right][snapback]132492[/snapback][/right]

My usual sarcasm.
davis¹³
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Oct 1 2005, 09:42 AM)
My usual sarcasm.
[right][snapback]132499[/snapback][/right]



I disagree. Usually it drips so much I need to spread a drop cloth.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Sep 30 2005, 04:26 PM)

You're still dancing around the central question:  Forget "legal", and just tell me if you think this plan to swap illegal money for legal money was ethical?
[right][snapback]132270[/snapback][/right]


I don't think most of politics is ethical, including a DA that says he's going to "get" an opposing party's politician, then proceeds to do just that. If it were just legal he wouldn't be telling everyone is was political, and then coordinating with the democrat party to use the indictment for political purposes within hours.
davis¹³
How about we let everybody do anything they want because it's allll political, NOTHING IS ILLEGAL and everything can be justified by saying everybody does it or that's how things work in DC?


Ever read what the man says?
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Oct 1 2005, 09:41 AM)
How about we let everybody do anything they want because it's allll political, NOTHING IS ILLEGAL and everything can be justified by saying everybody does it or that's how things work in DC?
Ever read what the man says?
[right][snapback]132557[/snapback][/right]


It's got to be everybody or nobody.


davis¹³
Why don't Republicans say that now? Huh? Because they ran on ethics and betrayed everyone who voted for them on that issue. You let that slide because they are rightwingers.

Screw the Rostenkowskis, the Daleys, the Daschelles. If they're dirty, go after them. Earle has a record of 12 and 3. 12 Democrats, 3 Republicans.

Spin that any way you want, no doubt you will.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Oct 1 2005, 10:20 AM)
Why don't Republicans say that now? Huh? Because they ran on ethics and betrayed everyone who voted for them on that issue. You let that slide because they are rightwingers.

Screw the Rostenkowskis, the Daleys, the Daschelles. If they're dirty, go after them. Earle has a record of 12 and 3. 12 Democrats, 3 Republicans.

Spin that any way you want, no doubt you will.
[right][snapback]132579[/snapback][/right]


Without knowing who and why a count of Dems and Reps in any given county means nothing.
Mizilus
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Oct 1 2005, 06:31 AM)
Tell us again why the GOP isn't the party of corporate power.

I think I need to hear that one more time.
[right][snapback]132489[/snapback][/right]



YEah they are the party of the little guy in the redzone and their 5, 10 and $20 dollar donations. Lots and lots and lots of them.

laugh.gif
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Oct 1 2005, 01:33 PM)
YEah they are the party of the little guy in the redzone and their 5, 10 and $20 dollar donations. Lots and lots and lots of them.

laugh.gif
[right][snapback]132607[/snapback][/right]

Right.
Grigorii
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 1 2005, 10:25 AM)
I don't think most of politics is ethical, including a DA that says he's going to "get" an opposing party's politician, then proceeds to do just that. If it were just legal he wouldn't be telling everyone is was political, and then coordinating with the democrat party to use the indictment for political purposes within hours.
[right][snapback]132551[/snapback][/right]


I think you will find DeLouse made the first remarks about the DA and his investigation to try and derail it.

After that, you bet Earle said he was going to get him I don't blame him a bit; and it couldn't happen to a more deserving skunk.
Friend Judy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 1 2005, 10:25 AM)
I don't think most of politics is ethical, including a DA that says he's going to "get" an opposing party's politician, then proceeds to do just that. If it were just legal he wouldn't be telling everyone is was political, and then coordinating with the democrat party to use the indictment for political purposes within hours.
[right][snapback]132551[/snapback][/right]


AV, I'm not sure where that leaves you, or what you're saying.

Are you saying we should just surrender, and not care about corruption any more, and what DeLay did is fine with you, and prosecuting him for it sucks, and we should all just abandon any collective pretense of objecting to such behavior?

I mean, yes, it's all political, but we have heretofore set boundaries on what was "acceptably" political, and what unacceptably drifted off into the realm of "corruption". So I'm not sure where you're coming from. Yes, it's an endless battle between law and corruption, and it's never gonna stop and no one is ever gonna permanently "win".

But I'm not sure that that wisely translates into "close your eyes and think of England".
Nomarchy
FJ, I agree with you.

For example, in a market society, we really, in the end, don't and shouldn't give a flying fuck why a new competitor goes after a monopolist, and thus lowers the prices of the goods we want, . . . he may have a grudge against the monopolist, he may want to steal his wife, he may want to get rich so that he can contribute more to the "Church of Satan", whatever. If he plays within the rules of the game, we're fine.

Likewise, the 'motives' of a prosecutor, so long as no one gets framed, no evidence is manufactured, no exculpatory evidence 'disappeared', etc, are irrelevant.
Spot
So, if a prosecutor decided to go only after black defendents it would be be ok, as long as they didn't manufacture evidence, hide exculpatory evidence etc.?

Bee
QUOTE(Spot @ Oct 1 2005, 09:42 PM)
So, if a prosecutor decided to go only after black defendents it would be be ok, as long as they didn't manufacture evidence, hide exculpatory evidence etc.?
[right][snapback]132703[/snapback][/right]


As long as the prosecutor goes after crooks, it's o.k.

Delay qualifies.

What has race got to do with any of this?

blink.gif
Spot
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 1 2005, 06:48 PM)
As long as the prosecutor goes after crooks, it's o.k.

[right][snapback]132704[/snapback][/right]


Nomarchy says motivation doesn't matter. I would say if the motivation is to only prosecute one sex, color, political persuasion, it might matter. EQUAL protection and all.

Grigorii
QUOTE(Spot @ Oct 1 2005, 07:42 PM)
So, if a prosecutor decided to go only after black defendents it would be be ok, as long as they didn't manufacture evidence, hide exculpatory evidence etc.?
[right][snapback]132703[/snapback][/right]



It might help if you had a realistic rebuttal, show me a district where any prosecutor could long get away with such actions.

What Noma said is as long as a prosecutor despences fair justice, which your example would not qualify as, his personal reasons for doing so are irrelevant. Could you not comprehend that or do you just enjoy irrelevant nit picking.
Spot
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Oct 1 2005, 08:33 PM)
It might help if you had a realistic rebuttal, show me a district where any prosecutor could long get away with such actions.

What Noma said is as long as a prosecutor despences fair justice, which your example would not qualify as, his personal reasons for doing so are irrelevant. Could you not comprehend that or do you just enjoy irrelevant nit picking.
[right][snapback]132721[/snapback][/right]



I suppose fair is what is fair to you and unfair to your enemies.

I guess since it's getting nasty I'm going to bed.

Bye.
Grigorii
QUOTE(Spot @ Oct 1 2005, 09:36 PM)
I suppose fair is what is fair to you and unfair to your enemies.

I guess since it's getting nasty I'm going to bed.

Bye.
[right][snapback]132722[/snapback][/right]



sleep well
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Oct 1 2005, 01:53 PM)
I think you will find DeLouse made the first remarks about the DA and his investigation to try and derail it.

After that, you bet Earle said he was going to get him I don't blame him a bit; and it couldn't happen to a more deserving skunk.
[right][snapback]132650[/snapback][/right]


Hey, I'm all for more politics. Like sports it only matters who wins and payback is a bitch. Wouldn't bother me if DeLay and Earle shot each other dead in the street.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Oct 1 2005, 08:46 PM)
sleep well
[right][snapback]132724[/snapback][/right]


She doesn't have the stomach for hardball politics yet. Give it time.
Bee
QUOTE(Spot @ Oct 1 2005, 09:54 PM)
Nomarchy says motivation doesn't matter. I would say if the motivation is to only prosecute one  sex, color, political persuasion, it might matter. EQUAL protection and all.
[right][snapback]132707[/snapback][/right]



No. He didn't say that.

A prosecutors job is to prosecute criminals. That is a given, I'd think. If you re-read with that in mind, you'll see that your assumption was er, off.

wink.gif
Mizilus
Good night sweet prince.
davis¹³
Woo hoo!




user posted image
davis¹³
Hey artie, thanks for adding the images feature. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words.


user posted image
davis¹³
And probably the best:


user posted image
davis¹³
user posted image
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Oct 2 2005, 07:42 AM)
user posted image
[right][snapback]132762[/snapback][/right]

Choice.
Arturo_Vandelay
Ever think it might look less political if Dems didn't make it look political?

Your boy as much as said it would be political BEFORE he made the indictment.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 2 2005, 09:39 AM)
Ever think it might look less political if Dems didn't make it look political?

Your boy as much as said it would be political BEFORE he made the indictment.
[right][snapback]132796[/snapback][/right]

Delay's actions thenselves were undertaken to manipulate a political result.

Of course their are political consequences.

How would there not be?
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Oct 2 2005, 07:44 AM)
Delay's actions thenselves were undertaken to manipulate a political result.

[right][snapback]132797[/snapback][/right]


Imagine, a politician manipulating a political result.

I AM SHOCKED
Bee
You should be.

This manipulation is unprecedented and as far as I can tell, unfixable.

QUOTE
Texas sent seven new representatives to Congress this session:
Louie Gohmert (R-1st)
Ted Poe (R-2nd)
Al Green (D-9th)
Michael McCaul (R-10th)
Mike Conaway (R-11th)
Kenny Marchant (R-24th)
Henry Cuellar (D-28th)

Of them, all five Republicans joined the delegation thanks to the DeLay fundraising/redistricting conspiracy.

Gohmert and Poe beat Chief Deputy Whip Max Sandlin and Rep. Nick Lampson, respectively, in closely contested races.

The other three Republican seats were picked up in newly created districts where the incumbent did not run.


In its election projections, CNN called DeLay redistricting's "primary architect" and declared  Texas a "huge win for the GOP."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/28/143730/994



How are they going to fix that? Declare the elections null and void?

DeLay claimed responsibility. Let him rot for tampering with elections in a BIG way.
Bart Katz
culture of corruption

Today's talking poirn phrase. Can you work it into almost any discussion, even if it isn't relevant? Some broad on a talk show managed to shift a discussion on John Roberts totally around and into a Tom DeLay rant. Amazing.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Oct 2 2005, 08:04 AM)
culture of corruption

Today's talking poirn phrase.  Can you work it into almost any discussion, even if it isn't relevant?  Some broad on a talk show managed to shift a discussion on John Roberts totally around and into a Tom  DeLay rant.  Amazing.
[right][snapback]132809[/snapback][/right]


Rahm Emanuel just used it on MTP laugh.gif

The funny part was hearing the PRESS use it on day one. Sure makes it LOOK like a conspiracy when you hear a montage of Dems and press corps saying the EXACT same thing.
Arturo_Vandelay
Just noticed, Rahm is missing a finger. I wonder what happened? A good friend routered one off and my Father in law lost one when a train ran over it.
SherryB
The foreman of the grand jury spoke to a television reporter about the indictment of DeLay. He is a former sheriff and says if the evidence wasn't there to convict DeLay, they would have no billed him. See the interview here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/30.html#a5177

He says Ronny Earle didn't indict DeLay that 12 citizens looking at the evidence did.

Arturo_Vandelay
James Trafficant was a sheriff too.


Earle has a history of indictments that fall apart. We'll have to see if a jury will actually convict, or if Earle will even get to trial, since he didn't make it against this lawyer last time.

Of course ruining reputations doesn't always require a conviction.
SherryB
Did you watch the video? I believe the evidence must have been there or he would not have indicted DeLay.
SherryB
Grand jury foreman defends DeLay indictment
9/29/2005 6:32 PM
By: Hermelinda Vargas


News 8 Austin's Hermelinda Vargas, left, interviews William Gibson, who did not want his face shown.
The 12-member grand jury that indicted U.S. Rep. Tom Delay, R-Sugar Land, faces scrutiny from critics who say they are lackeys for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

Foreman William Gibson lives in a Northeast Austin neighborhood.

It's been his philosophy not to have his picture taken because he doesn't want to be harassed, Gibson said.

Gibson isn't really afraid of that. He did his duty and that bound him to look at Tom Delay as just another Texan accused of criminal conspiracy, he said.

"I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members," Gibson said.



The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence.

"It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us," Gibson said.

On Wednesday, Earle would not go into details about any potential evidence against Delay. But he did describe the scheme he's accusing Delay of coordinating.

"The indictment describes a scheme whereby corporate money, which cannot be given to candidates in Texas was sent to the Republican National Committee where it was exchanged for money raised from individuals and then sent to those Texas legislative candidates," Earle said.

Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay.

"We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn't feel there was sufficient evidence," said Gibson.

The evidence is there to prove Delay was involved in wrongdoing and also prove that he and his fellow grand jurors acted independent of political influence, Gibson said.

"It wasn't Mr. Earle that indicted the man. It was the 12 members of the grand jury," Gibson said.

Gibson is a former sheriff's deputy and a former investigator for what is now the Texas Department of Insurance.



http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_ne...asp?ArID=146685



Bee
QUOTE
He's Forked Himself'

Our Full conversation with Louis Dubose about 'The Hammer'

BY MICHAEL KING
Last month PublicAffairs published The Hammer: Tom DeLay, God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress, by Austin authors Lou Dubose and Jan Reid. The book recounts the life and career of U.S. House Majority Leader DeLay, R-Sugar Land, who rose from South Texas oil fields to small pest-control businessman, to Texas state representative, to eventually become the most powerful member of the U.S. Congress. Authors Dubose, a former Austin Chronicle politics editor, and Reid have been longtime observers of Texas politics, and have followed DeLay throughout his career, but this has been an extraordinary year for DeLay-watchers indeed. Their subject has been much in the news lately, for ethics "admonitions" from his fellow House members and for campaign finance scandals involving his close associates in Texas and D.C. It's a timely moment for a political biography, and Dubose and Reid are making the rounds, appearing on the talk shows and promoting the book. Last week Reid was en route to Washington, but we sat down with Louis Dubose in his home, a couple of blocks above Deep Eddy, and talked about DeLay, his political and ideological history, and his remarkable hold on the Congress. The following is a brief excerpt from that conversation. The full interview is available at www.austinchronicle.com. – Michael King

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/disp...s_feature2.html


yep. it's the prosecutors fault DeLay broke the law.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 2 2005, 10:36 AM)
Just noticed,  Rahm is missing a finger. I wonder what happened?  A good friend routered one off and my Father in law lost one when a train ran over it.
[right][snapback]132816[/snapback][/right]


Maybe his Zippo didn't work.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(SherryB @ Oct 2 2005, 11:10 AM)
The foreman of the grand jury spoke to a television reporter about the indictment of DeLay.  He is a former sheriff and says if the evidence wasn't there to convict DeLay, they would have no billed him.  See the interview here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/30.html#a5177

  He says Ronny Earle didn't indict DeLay that 12 citizens looking at the evidence did.
[right][snapback]132823[/snapback][/right]


After 4 other groups of 12 turned him down. One out of 5 ain't bad. rolleyes.gif
davis¹³
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Oct 2 2005, 10:04 AM)
culture of corruption

Today's talking poirn phrase.  Can you work it into almost any discussion, even if it isn't relevant?  Some broad on a talk show managed to shift a discussion on John Roberts totally around and into a Tom  DeLay rant.  Amazing.
[right][snapback]132809[/snapback][/right]



The good lord should strike you dead. You morons use slogans and labels every day of your lives to beat people to death with, then, when someone finds a phrase that fits your corrupt, phony assed reps and senators in DC you whine.

Call a waaaaambulance.

It is a culture of corruption.

davis¹³
looks like storms brewing. bbl.
davis¹³
user posted image
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.