DeLay is a hypocrite and a criminal. When he gets up in front of crowds and professes unwavering faith in Christ it makes me want to puke. I would like to see him go to prison.

he must be destroyed, he must be destroyed, he must be destroyed!


Why don't you just say "fuck him like he's never been fucked before?"!!

The Rove response.


The REAL issue is a god damned crook who got where he is by running on an ethics platform. Then the maggot cashes in every way possible, some methods even the crooked Democrats didn't think of.

DeLay is tainted. He is rotten to the core.

OK, so long as you don't pre-judge the case.





A Ronnie Earle quote?

I've been following DeLay's sideshow for years.

Do you know how he partially funded the big Republican party in New York? He solicited donations for a charity he set up. 75% of the money went to this child advocacy organisation but 25% went toRepublican coffers. If you donated so much you got dinner with DeLay. Hell, it was outside the regular campaign laws and disclosure rules. Then, on top of that you got a tax deduction.

The whole thing was illegal. Frist has a similar scam set up.

What do you hear from congress? NOTHING!!

Rotten to the core. And Democrats? They are quaking in their boots at the prospect of an ethics war.

But that doesn't make Republicans right. It's a shame.

Old Tom has been pulling these scams for years and he needs to be held accountable.

That's not even counting the attempted bribery of fellow Republican Nick Smith for his Medicare vote.

Ok, B.K. you know that's weak.

All taxes is not income tax.

It would help if Judy posted her source. Then we might know what she was attempting to talk about, and where the numbers came from.

She did post it and that's what it said.

If you boys want to be in the nit picking biz, I suggest you go into it full time.

Don't I know that for a fact!

Yeah, suppose nothing's a given when you have people parsing every letter of every word of every post. I make a strong case against partisan bullshit, take it or leave it. Wallow in it for all I give a flying fuck.

And you the guy that bitches about piling on if more than one person replies to one of your silly posts.

When we talk about tax cuts... it's federal income tax cuts. The federal government can't cut sales taxes, property taxes , state income tax, state escrow taxes, state death taxes etc... that's up to the local states, counties and cities.

Didn't you know that?

You mean the estate tax, right?

Jub-Jub

[CENTER]
WHICH ONE IS MORE BELIEVABLE?[/CENTER]

I believe this confirms the basis of intelligent design.

Thanks.

More importantly... the basis of evolution!

But, but, but, that would mean the evangelicals are lying when they say it isn't promoting Christianity.

Lying for the cause has gotton to be habit for this crew.

But, but, but, that would totally ruin any credibility they may have had.

Y'know, I can't help but notice that DeLay's "defenders" are just harping on the prosecution and prosecutor being "political".

I haven't heard a single person on this board assert that his actions were moral or ethical. The new standard of the GOP and the White House appears to be that anything not outright illegal is ethical.

So much for morals and values.

Morals and values? Don't tell me how to practice MY religion!

he didn't funnel tax dollars into the candidates of his choice. I happen to think he did a good job.
And that the scandal will blow over.

At least one of the corporations involved plead quilty already. As they were the source of the funds, you'd think they would know.

The unions have a lot of foot soldiers, that is their advantage, and if my guess is correct, why Dems concentrate on banning and prosecuting cash donations. Even the law is political.

I'm pretty sure Delay understood the language of the law and worked around it sufficiently. It makes sense that a corporation would go ahead and plead guilty even if it isn't technically... cost v benefit.

Unions vs corporations.

Now there's a battle of evenly matched titans.

So, if he ends up being found guilty, then what? Are you going to claim that it was jury vendetta?

How can you be "pretty sure" that he worked around the language of the law sufficiently? Based on what?

I'm more interested in why Ills thinks it's ok to "work around the language of the law", instead of abiding by the spirit and intent of that law.

That would be unilateral disarmament.

Good for Dems, no wonder you're for it.

Maybe he's going to appeal to the Almighty.

His almighty? You mean Lucifer?

Wouldn't that be a "Lower level"

Oh, wait. That's right, with the GOP, up is down.

Fair enough. I'd say that he was aware of the law, consulted with his attorneys, and developed a strategy to get around it.
He's said that much.

Because that's how I think laws work. Something is banned, and it's explicitly labelled as banned.
You start dealing in spirit and intent, and the whole deal becomes subjective instead of objective.

Exactly. If they can't beat you with the objective legalities, then they want to raise the bar and argue over morality. YOUR morality of course. They don't want to discuss theirs. And they aren't even coy about it. "I was talking about ......" or "everybody does it is no excuse".

I could never stand DeLay, but I'd MUCH rather see him gone in a legal case rather than a political vendetta. Ronnie Earle made it loook like a political vendetta from the start,and the Dem party has added to the problem by being at the ready with coordinated fund raising tools within hours.

Bullshit. You rightwingers seem to forget and dismiss HOW HE GOT WHERE HE IS. Morality is a club to beat Republican opponents with. But don't ever try to point out their bullshit! How dare you?? The fact he's a bigger scammer than Democrats ever were while running on ethics and morals is meaningless to you BECAUSE HE'S NOT A LIBERAL.

yeah the reich is ALWAYS sniffing around the gray areas for loopholes. That is where all their time and energy goes and of course the researched it.

If it comes right down to it they will either bribe or murder the jurors and delay will get off quicker than ken lay.

yeah. blah blah blah blather blah.

Yeah only the reich is allowed to phony up a political vendetta and make it stick with the help of their bought and paid for "liburul media". Its their stock and trade and they dont even have to pretend otherwise when they claim moral superiority.

So you're saying it's only OK if you do it.

You're allowed to have all the political vendettas you want. Looks like Ronnie Earle took his case to several grand juries to get his vendetta going, finally getting one to indict at the last second when they had just been sworn in.

No.

You are.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/politics/04delay.html

The new indictment was brought on the first day of deliberations by a newly empaneled grand jury in Austin. The grand jury that brought the original conspiracy charges against Mr. DeLay, and which had been investigating the lawmaker for months, was disbanded last week.

Without an explanation from the prosecutors, local criminal law specialists seemed perplexed by Mr. Earle's actions, saying they may reflect an effort by the prosecutor to ensure that some charge sticks to Mr. DeLay even if the conspiracy indictment is dimissed.

George E. Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas and a specialist in criminal procedures, speculated that prosecutors "saw a potential problem" with the conspiracy counts "and didn't want to hassle over it, so they went with a legal theory on money laundering that wouldn't present the same problems." He said if that was the case, it could be embarrassing to Mr. Earle because "it is a little awkward to have to change a theory before your horse is out of the gate."

The essential allegations are identical in the new and old indictment - that Mr. DeLay and his aides transferred $190,000 in corporate donations from a Texas political action committee to the Republican National Committee in September 2002, and that it was returned to individual Republican candidates for the Texas state house. A century-old ban in Texas prohibits the use of corporate money in the campaigns of state candidates.

Mr. DeLay's lawyers argued in their court papers on Monday that the conspiracy statute cited in the original statute did not apply to election law violations that occurred in 2002; they said the law was not amended until the following year to allow electoral code violations to be prosecuted as a conspiracy.

In a letter to Mr. Earle on Monday, Dick DeGuerin, a lawyer for Mr. DeLay, repeated the arguments for abandoning the conspiracy charges and said that "since you have professed not to be politically motivated in bringing this indictment, I request that you immediately agree to dismiss this indictment so that the political consequences can be reversed."

Within hours, Mr. Earle responded with the new money-laundering indictment, brought before a grand jury that was in its first hours of operation. Mr. DeGuerin said in a telephone interview that the new grand jury could not have understood what it was approving: "These are 12 people who are newly sworn in, and just getting them oriented takes them all day."

That would be quite a feat, considering the information was received last weekend.

Can we call no tag backs?

Hey, I figger live by the "morals and integrity sword" and die by it.

It is true the Republicans ran on it. So if they get called on it that's not the fault of the Dems.

I seldom call you or the lefties on it, but you guys live on complaining about everyone elses morals. You were fussing about somebody's Christian humility or some such thing just today.

Oh. Yeah. When someone looks down their nose at me and poses a "holier than thou" attitude, I tend to react that way.

But I always forget, I'm not entitled to an opinion on this board. You can talk about policy, but the minute I make a comment about one group or policy, it becomes all about me personally.

Sometimes I wonder what some of the posters would have to talk about if I wasn't here.

The humility I was refering to was the humility it takes to keep one's nose out of their neighbors bedroom and womb, at any rate.

IOW, accepting that you don't know better than your neighbor does what's good for them.

I find it very odd that you guyses don't seem to regard the central question as a "moral" one.

DeLay's goal was to redraw Congressional districts so that the outcome of elections there would be fore-ordained. To make six more districts where "voting" for Congresscritters is a rather silly exercise unlikely to have any impact on government. To reduce the ability of the citizenry at large to influence the laws and policies by which they are governed.

Now, that's very much a moral question in a democracy.