Tom DeLay indicted by county Grand Jury.

[POIESIS]

btw, what ever happened to the 9/11 domestic anthrax attack investigation?

hmmmmmm

[SF1]

Originally posted by POIESIS@Oct 12 2005, 03:34 PM

both parties need to go huff some anthrax.

Quoted post

 

 

Agreed.

[KaBar2]

SF1---

That was a joke, guy. That's what DeLay is accused of doing---arranging to have corporate money channeled to Republican candidates through a Republican shell. This is against the law, supposedly "for over a hundred years." It is also against the law to channel labor union funds to political candidates, but of course, the Democrats would never do such a thing. It's ONLY THE REPUBLICANS who allow special interest money to reach the campaign fund accounts of their candidates.

 

Yup, they're the Devil all right.

 

Politics is a dirty business. It is rife with corruption and deal-making and attempts to bias the outcome of laws, rules and regulations. It's still the only system we've got, and despite all it's warts, the best and most free political system on earth. There are some changes I would like to see made, however. I think that the U.S. would do well to have a system closer to the parliamentary system where smaller political parties receive representation according to the number of votes they receive.

 

The big parties are absolutely against this, of course, because it would mean having to deal with the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Labor Party, the Communist Worker's Party, the Socialist Worker's Party, the Green Party, the People's Party, the Peace & Freedom Party and all the other ultra-Left political parties, regardless of how weak numerically and wacky they might be.

 

It ALSO means having to deal with the National Socialist Movement, the National Socialist White People's Party, the Southern National Party, the Conservative Party, Lyndon LaRouche's wack-job party (whatever they call themselves now,) regardless of how extremist and crazy they might be.

The present system manages to exclude these people from any genuine political power. Frankly, I don't see that as a bad thing. For the most part, they are lunatics, and I can see no reason to mainstream them and legitimize their crazy-ass messages.

 

Their response to being marginalized is to join the two main parties, where their wackiness is diffused and muzzled somewhat by being diluted among the rest of the more-or-less sane Democrats and Republicans.

 

I'm sure the Democrats are not nearly extremist enough for you. You'd probably like to vote Socialist, or at least Democratic Socialist, but you know very well that if you did so, you'd be throwing your vote away, and strengthening the hand of the Republicans.

 

I voted for Perot as a protest against George Bush 41. He PISSED ME OFF by signing the Assault Weapons Ban, and nearly every single gun owner that I know did the same thing. Bush's stupid-ass move cost him about 15% of the conservative vote, and put Bill Clinton in the White House. I guess I felt if I was going to get fucked, I'd rather get fucked by my adversaries than my so-called friends. I threw my vote away, because the Republicans spit in my face. One of my acquaintances wrote in the Southern National Party candidate. That's really throwing your vote away.

 

The Republicans and the Democrats are actually two sides of the same coin. The leaders at the top went to the same universities. They belong to the same fraternities. They marry within the same wealthy class of people. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

 

Nevertheless, there are some small differences between them, policy-wise. If the Democrats would let go of their idiotic opposition to the Second Amendment and their championing of a secular, irresponsible, immoral, socialist society, I would probably return to voting for the candidate, rather than for the party. There is no longer a conservative Democratic Party to support. They were essentially expelled, and became Republicans. So, I vote Republican. My grand-daddy would be appalled.

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 12 2005, 12:48 PM

SF1---

The Republicans and the Democrats are actually two sides of the same coin. The leaders at the top went to the same universities. They belong to the same fraternities. They marry within the same wealthy class of people. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

 

Nevertheless, there are some small differences between them, policy-wise. If the Democrats would let go of their idiotic opposition to the Second Amendment and their championing of a secular, irresponsible, immoral, socialist society, I would probably return to voting for the candidate, rather than for the party. There is no longer a conservative Democratic Party to support. They were essentially expelled, and became Republicans. So, I vote Republican. My grand-daddy would be appalled.

Quoted post

 

Your first paragraph hits the nail on the head. But in the second paragraph you seem to confuse the two parties.... It's the republicans who just engaged in an uneccesary, expensive, war that we are losing...not to mention the reasons for war were based on lies, and the real reasons are extremely obvious when considering the ancestry of our president. If thats not the most fucking irresponsible thing our gov't has done in the last 4 decades, then I don't know the definition of irresponsible. Not to mention this war is extremely immoral too. but whatever. I guess clinton was waay more irresponsible and immoral when he got his dick sucked.

[SF1]

Originally posted by KaBar2+Oct 12 2005, 05:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KaBar2 - Oct 12 2005, 05:48 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> It's still the only system we've got, and despite all it's warts, the best and most free political system on earth.

Quoted post

[/b]

This is a lie.

 

<!--QuoteBegin-KaBar2@Oct 12 2005, 05:48 PM

  If the Democrats would let go of their idiotic opposition to the Second Amendment and their championing of a secular, irresponsible, immoral, socialist society, I would probably return to voting for the candidate, rather than for the party.  There is no longer a conservative Democratic Party to support.  They were essentially expelled, and became Republicans.  So, I vote Republican.  My grand-daddy would be appalled.

Quoted post

 

 

What's "immoral" about a little Socialism mixed with Democracy? It seems to work pretty fucking well for Canada, as well as a handfull of European countries. I know you grew up brainwashed during the cold war and all but come on, grow the fuck up already and maybe you can honestly answer this without confusing Democratic Socialism with Communism. Cause I'll tell you what we already are alot closer to Communism then alot of Socialist countries and we aint even Socialist.

 

Also I agree about the Second ammendment. The Republicans by the way are just pretending to have your back on gun rights. It's lip service. Shit I even joined the NRA and all I got out of it was abunch of political propoganda mail and phone calls telling me how evil the Democrats are and who (which Republican) to vote for. It was anoying. I had to tell them to stop calling me. Once guns are completely gone we are 100% enslaved to whatever fascism they want to impose and we are litteraly defensless. There will be no revolution without guns. And you have to be pretty fucking naive or just plain stupid to think that the REPUBLICANS of all people are gonna keep allowing people to have guns. They already pretty much have enough power to tell the NRA to go fuck themselves being as elections are already rigged and peoples votes nolonger matter. Just remember that this is your government that you support when shit hits the fan Kabar. It already is and you're either too brainwashed, stupid, or worried about your guns to even realise it. What good is the Second Amendment gonna do you when the Republicans finnally get their hands on it too? After they already completely obliterated the rest of the Constitution and Bill of rights it aint gonna help you to say "oh gee, I guess I'll switch to Democrat" after the democrats have been completely nuetered to the point that they fit into the frey of Socialists, Green Party, Libertarians etc etc and the only powerfull party left is the fascist Republican Regime.

[Guest KING BLING]

Do innocent men try to scare there accusers and cast doubt by attempting charges against them?

 

It worked for O.J., why not for O.DeLay?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/del...r.ap/index.html

DeLay lawyers subpoena prosecutor

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay's attorneys are trying to compel testimony by prosecutors on their contacts with grand jurors, sending subpoenas to the Texas district attorney who normally issues them.

 

DeLay's defense team reversed the normal direction of subpoenas in their strategy to have the charges dismissed before trial. The lawyers contend that the Travis County district attorney, Ronnie Earle, acted improperly with two grand juries that filed charges and one that refused to do so.

 

DeLay, R-Texas, was obligated to temporarily step aside as House majority leader when charged with conspiracy and money laundering in a state campaign finance investigation led by Earle. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing.

 

Defense attorney Dick DeGuerin said that Earle refused the subpoena delivered to his office on Tuesday, when he declined to sign a paper acknowledging its delivery. Earle countered that he voluntarily accepted it.

 

DeGuerin wants Earle and two of his assistants to testify, and said he would redeliver subpoenas Wednesday. Earle responded that redelivery wasn't necessary.

 

"It was not a properly prepared subpoena but we accepted service voluntarily anyway," the prosecutor said. He refused to say whether he would file a motion to have his subpoena dismissed.

 

DeGuerin also asked that grand jurors be released from their secrecy oath so they could answer questions about the prosecutor's conduct.

 

Earle's office said in a written statement, "Because of laws protecting grand jury secrecy, there are limitations to what we can say at this time, but we fully expect to prevail in this matter."

 

Focus on conversation

DeGuerin wants Earle to answer 12 questions about conversations he had with grand jurors, including whether the prosecutor became angry when a grand jury decided against an indictment of DeLay and why that decision was not publicly released.

 

He also wants to know the details of Earle's conversation with William Gibson, foreman of a grand jury that indicted DeLay on conspiracy charges, whose term has since ended.

 

"If you did nothing improper, you should not be concerned about answering these questions," DeGuerin said in his letter to Earle.

 

The first of three grand juries said DeLay and two political associates conspired to violate Texas election laws; the second declined to indict, and the third accused DeLay of money laundering.

 

All the charges were related to allegations that corporate money was funneled to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law. The donations helped Republicans capture the Texas legislature, redraw congressional districts with DeLay's help and take control of the state's congressional delegation.

 

In a motion filed last week, the defense team said that from September 29 through October 3, Earle and his staff "unlawfully participated in grand jury deliberations and attempted to browbeat and coerce" the grand jury that refused to indict DeLay.

 

Foreman 'incited'

The motion said Earle then attempted to cover up and delay public disclosure of the refusal, and also "incited" the foreman of the first grand jury to violate grand jury secrecy by talking publicly about the case -- in an effort to influence grand jurors still sitting.

 

The foreman, William Gibson, gave media interviews after the grand jury finished its work but told The Associated Press that Earle did not ask him to discuss the case.

 

"That's a bunch of (expletive) there," Gibson said. "That man did not talk to me."

 

He said Earle advised him and other grand jurors to keep an open mind as they considered evidence and cautioned them, "What goes on behind closed doors is secret."

 

The lawyers said Earle then spoke about the case with members of the first grand jury, whose work was finished, to get their opinion of what they might have done if they had known their conspiracy indictment was flawed -- as defense attorneys alleged.

 

Earle then submitted the grand jury opinions to the third grand jury to persuade it to hand down the money laundering indictment, the defense team contended.

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 12 2005, 09:48 AM

SF1---

 

 

I think that the U.S. would do well to have a system closer to the parliamentary system where smaller political parties receive representation according to the number of votes they receive.

Quoted post

 

 

I 100% agree with this statement - Hell has frozen over

 

On the Delay issue, you can't use the argument that others do it as the basis for why its okay that Delay does it - it doesn't work on a moral compass nor in a court of law. Your mom taught you that in regards to jumping off bridges...

 

Youre doing what Delay is doing as noted in my posted article - instead of explaining the actions or proving the accusations unjust you are trying to show him as 'not that bad'. You have yet to show any testable info regarding Delays innocence or the motives of the prosecutor. Instead you have relied on talk of revenge, attempts to lessen the severity/extent of the crime, and other generalities which have nothing to do with the case at hand.

 

Did he do it? Yes.

 

Does it appear to violate state law? Yes, it does appear that way enough for a jury of his peers to see it as qualified for a courts review.

 

Is anyone showing any proof that the acusations are wrong? No.

 

Is anyone on the right trying to justify the actions of an accused criminal while attacking a man proven by his record to have few biases in his prosecutions? YES!

[shai]

DeLay still guiding force in House GOP

Despite having been forced out as leader by indictment, he's corralling votes, strategizing

Carl Hulse, New York Times

 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

 

Washington -- When the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee needed guidance on how to prepare for a series of tough spending and budget issues, he sat down with Tom DeLay.

 

DeLay was also on hand as the Budget Committee chairman held a private session on the drive for new spending cuts. And when the Republican leadership was caught short of votes for a contentious energy bill, DeLay scoured the House floor to help deliver a narrow victory.

 

While DeLay is officially out of his position as majority leader as a result of his indictment on criminal charges in Texas, he remains the go-to guy for many House Republicans. They say he is virtually indispensable as the party faces the daunting prospect of delivering $50 billion or more in spending cuts as well as an immigration measure in the coming weeks.

 

"He is still dialed in and gives good counsel, and that is what we are seeking," said John Scofield, a spokesman for Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands (San Bernardino County), who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in explaining why Lewis called in DeLay for advice last week.

 

But the continuing strong presence of DeLay presents House Republicans with a quandary. Though he has the political muscle and inside knowledge to maneuver difficult legislation in a dicey political climate, he is also operating under the liability of the state criminal charges. Some Republicans acknowledge that their work could be tainted by any perception that he commands the House from the sidelines while awaiting a resolution of the charges.

 

"DeLay is driving the agenda," said one senior Republican lawmaker who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of talking about internal party matters. "I guess he has to be because he is the only guy who can get this done. But once people find out he is still in charge, that brings its own set of issues."

 

His intense involvement also creates a potentially awkward situation with Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, now the titular No. 2 in the House and a potential permanent candidate for the post should DeLay's Texas legal troubles drag on. Though Blunt has said he expects DeLay to take back the leadership post, the temporary leadership team is still finding its footing, and the task will not be made easier if lawmakers continue to look to DeLay.

 

"I thought once he was out, people would move on," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. "But he is still there, concentrating power within the leadership and himself."

 

Democrats were quick to notice as well, pointing out that DeLay was serving in his familiar role on Friday, rounding up elusive votes on the floor of the House as Republicans barely staved off defeat of a measure they said would spur construction of oil refineries.

 

"I think it will raise questions in the public's mind," said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House's No. 2 Democrat, about DeLay's involvement.

 

With the House in recess, DeLay is back in Texas, where he is taking a few days off from the relentless media campaign he has been waging against Ronnie Earle, the Austin prosecutor who brought the charges of conspiracy and money laundering. But his legal team continues to contest the charges and Tuesday sought to subpoena Earle and two aides to answer questions about their conduct in the case.

 

From the moment DeLay relinquished his leadership title after his Sept. 28 indictment, his senior colleagues have not hidden the fact that he will -- for now -- remain a force in the House.

 

"He is still a full-fledged member of Congress and has lots of political capital, and we are still very interested in his views," said Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the head of the House Republican Conference.

 

But how influential DeLay's role would be became apparent only as the House headed toward recess at the end of last week.

 

When Republicans had a closed meeting late Thursday to consider a leadership plan for spending cuts to pay for hurricane relief, those who attended recounted that DeLay urged his colleagues to pursue a "bold agenda" as the best way to position themselves for the 2006 elections. And he conceded that he and other leaders had been slow to take seriously the need for ways to offset the post-hurricane spending.

 

Though he is no longer using the large suite of offices assigned to the majority leader on the first floor of the Capitol, he is still taking advantage of a smaller leader's office just off the House floor. Officials said he had met there with Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, to discuss potential spending cuts to be taken up in the next few weeks.

 

"We absolutely welcome his help," said Angela Kuck, a Budget Committee spokeswoman.

 

Aides to DeLay said he would continue to remain active, particularly because they view his absence from the leadership as strictly temporary.

 

"Mr. DeLay has a unique understanding of a lot of the big policy debates, and he is somebody who has always worked in the past with his colleagues to make the case that their votes are important," said Kevin Madden, DeLay's spokesman. "That is one of the reasons he got into leadership, and people still recognize he has a degree of knowledge and influence."

 

---------------------------------

 

Sounds like business as usual on Capitol Hill.

[Guest KING BLING]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/14/delay.ap/index.html

 

DeLay's campaign goes after prosecutor

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tom DeLay is using his congressional campaign to distribute to voters derogatory information about the Texas prosecutor who has indicted him -- and to raise more money for a re-election bid that has been affected by the criminal case.

 

"Help Tom fight back," reads one of the solicitations on the http://www.TomDelay.com Web site that voters are being directed to as part of an Internet-based campaign paid for by DeLay's re-election committee.

 

Contributors, voters and others who sign up can get regular e-mails and an electronic "toolkit" from DeLay's campaign with the latest disparaging information his legal team has prepared on Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

 

"Join thousands of conservatives across the country in the fight against liberal DA Ronnie Earle," recipients are told.

 

Recipients are offered a full dossier about the Democratic prosecutor and his "baseless political indictment" with subjects like:

 

 

"Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office," which highlights failures in Earle's career such as his unsuccessful case against Republican Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 1990s.

 

 

"Earle asks for a Do-Over," which focuses on the prosecutor's decision to seek a re-indictment of DeLay on different charges after the congressman's lawyers raised technical questions about the first indictment.

 

 

"Coming Soon: The Ronnie Earle Movie," which highlights reports that Earle allowed a film crew to follow him during parts of the investigation.

 

Legal experts said DeLay's use of congressional campaign donations to attack Earle probably was permissible, though it could lead to legal questions about whether he was trying to influence potential jurors for his trial.

 

"He clearly is aiming at the jury pool and aiming at voters, hoping to generate as much sympathy as he can," said Larry Noble, the government's former chief election enforcement lawyer. "And it shows DeLay never misses a beat when it comes to fundraising -- no matter how dark things get."

 

Bruce Yannett, a former Iran-Contra prosecutor, said DeLay's campaign effort might raise questions of trying to taint the potential jury pool but the legal standard for making such a case is difficult to meet.

 

Nonetheless, Yannett said he could not imagine former President Reagan overtly using his campaign to attack prosecutors during the 1980s investigation of the Iran-Contra affair. "It does seem a little unusual," Yannett said.

 

DeLay has been indicted along with several colleagues on charges he conspired to launder illegal corporate contributions to Texas state candidates. He denies the charges. (Read about latest subpoenas)

 

Earle, apparently, hasn't been solicited by the campaign. "I haven't seen it and have no comment," the prosecutor said when reached Friday. Earle has strongly denied politics has anything to do with his prosecution.

 

'Perfectly legal'

Don McGahn, a lawyer for DeLay's campaign, said the use of the campaign for the anti-Earle effort was "perfectly legal" and had nothing do with trying to sway jurors.

 

The indictment "is obvious big news in Texas, so it is obviously something the campaign should address for the voters whom it affects," McGahn said. "The intent is just for people to understand the truth. There is no other purpose here."

 

"Ronnie Earle is wrong on the facts. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the law," the Web site states as it analyzes the twists and turns in the case in the most favorable light to the congressman.

 

It also gives readers their own tools -- letting them send a letter to newspaper editors in support of DeLay, contact a radio talk show or e-mail DeLay's statement to friends.

 

And the Web site wouldn't be complete without the oldest pitch in politics.

 

"Make a contribution," it asks.

[angelofdeath]

""Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it"

- Thomas Sowell Black Conservative

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Oct 17 2005, 05:47 PM

""Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it"

- Thomas Sowell Black Conservative

Quoted post

 

 

"For I was hungry and you gave me food,

I was thirsty and you gave me drink,

I was a Stranger and you Welcomed me,

I was naked and you clothed me,

I was sick and you visited me,

I was in prison and you came to me."

Matthew 25

 

 

Is that conservatives God the same as Mathews? God did all that for Mathew after all, so WWRD <what would the republican do?>

 

Conservatives don't like to give food or water, they are cutting aid for the hungry as we speak.

 

The militias on the boarder don't seem too welcoming, nor does cutting services to homeless agencies.

 

If a conservative gave clothing it would be a "hand out" and only acceptable if Haliburton supplied the cloth at $95 a t-shirt

 

Sick? You better be work for a company that will give you full coverage, will allow you to stay on the payroll beyond a few weeks of absence and DON'T try to to go bankrupt when your medical bills get too crazy - you can't anymore. Kill yourself, its legal in Oregon - states rights! Wait, conservatives don't like that either...

 

Prison? Conservatives love prisoners - thats why they build so many prisons, they are like little houses of JOY!

 

 

Anyway...Looks like Delay wants to redraw the districts again and get himself a fine conservative judge in a rural area who will see better why corruption is neccesary to instill the morality and responcibility that are pillars of the republican party...

 

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Rep. Tom DeLay appeared in court Friday for the first time since indictment, but arraignment on conspiracy and money laundering charges was delayed pending a hearing on his request for a new judge in the politically-charged case.

 

DeLay, who has stepped aside at least for the time being as House majority leader, did not speak during the brief court session, and was not called on to make a plea.

 

But at a news conference shortly afterward, he attacked the prosecutor in the case as politically motivated, and said, "I will absolutely be exonerated."

 

Inside the courtroom, Judge Bob Perkins told defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin that "the best way for me to handle" the request for a new judge would be to defer further proceedings.

 

That set the stage for a pointed exchange between the two men that seemed as much a campaign debate as a courtroom exchange.

 

In respectful tones, DeGuerin noted that Perkins had donated money to MoveOn.org, a liberal organization that he said has been "selling T-shirts with Mr. DeLay's mug shot on it."

 

Judge responds

"Let me just say I haven't ever seen that T-shirt, number one. Number two, I haven't bought it. Number three, the last time I contributed to MoveOn that I know of was prior to the November election last year, when they were primarily helping Sen. Kerry," responded the judge.

 

MoveOn.org denied it was selling any such shirts, and issued a statement that said, "DeGuerin has either bad information or lied in court."

 

"All we want is a fair trial and a fair tribunal," DeGuerin told reporters outside the courthouse.

 

Prosecutor Ronnie Earle signaled he intends to contest the request for a new judge.

 

"What this means is if a judge had contributed to Crime Stoppers that judge could not hear a burglary case," Earle said. "Carried to its extreme, that is what I think this motion means and I think that's absurd."

 

"We don't live in a country where political party determines the measure of justice," Earle said, adding that he though DeLay could get a fair trial in the state's capital.

 

It was not clear when the hearing would be held on DeLay's motion to replace Perkins, nor was it clear how much it would lengthen proceedings in the case. The Texas congressman has said he wants a speedy trial.

 

DeLay appeared relaxed as he sat next to his wife, Christine, in the courtroom for what turned out to be a session of roughly four minutes. Earlier, he had entered the courthouse through a side door to avoid the cameras.

 

DeLay and two political associates are charged in an alleged scheme to funnel corporate donations to GOP candidates for the Texas Legislature. State law prohibits use of corporate donations to elect or defeat state candidates. All three deny wrongdoing.

 

Political from the beginning

The case has had a political cast from the outset. The charges arise from a campaign in which Republicans gained control of the legislature, then used their new majority to force through a redistricting plan that netted the GOP additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

DeLay's indictment has roiled Republican politics in Washington, where he was forced to step aside as the No. 2 House Republican. With an eye on the 2006 elections, Democrats have sought to turn him into a symbol of what they depict as an ethically-challenged Republican majority.

 

But apart from giving up his leadership post -- as required under GOP rules -- DeLay has been nothing but defiant.

 

He retains a powerful influence in the House GOP high command, has repeatedly attacked Earle and now seeks to force the removal of the judge, who has donated to the organization that DeLay's lawyer described as antithetical to GOP fortunes.

 

"I will not let a prosecutor who pursues his political enemies by abusing the law and manufacturing baseless charges wreck our justice system," DeLay said at his news conference.

 

Change of venue

Apart from seeking a new judge, the congressman's lawyers are asking to have the case moved out of Austin, one of the state's most liberal areas.

 

DeLay turned himself in to the Harris County sheriff's office in Houston on Thursday, avoiding hordes of reporters waiting for him in nearby Fort Bend County, where he lives.

 

He smiled broadly in a mug shot that was publicly released. DeLay also was fingerprinted, went before a judge and was released on $10,000 bail.

 

DeLay's co-defendants are John Colyandro of Dallas, who was executive director of a Texas political action committee founded by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, a paid adviser who also runs DeLay's national fundraising committee. They also face conspiracy and money laundering charges, but their attorneys asked that their cases be separated from DeLay's proceedings.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/21/del...t.ap/index.html

[angelofdeath]

once again Bling, nice try, but you just dont get it. the verse which you quote does not say for the government at gun point rob the people of its money and redistribute it. real conservatives believe (AKA THE FRAMERS OF OUR COUNTRY) in not taxing the incomes of the citizens by the federal government. it was written into the constitution. our government was financed for over a century mainly on tariff revenue. it is should not be the job of the federal government to rob americans of thier money to give away to someone else. i know its hard to fathom, but the United States is/was a republic.

 

i dont think you realize how generous the american people are. take for example hurricane katrina. 600 m in private aid was generated in less than a week.

 

how did people get along with out reliance on the federal welfare state pre new deal? its called friendship, family, and responsibility. lets see the government has done such a good job with the welfare state right? how come spending has topped 17 trillion and poverty HAS NO DECREASED?

not enough money?

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Oct 21 2005, 07:25 PM

how did people get along with out reliance on the federal welfare state pre new deal? its called friendship, family, and responsibility. lets see the government has done such a good job with the welfare state right? how come spending has topped 17 trillion and poverty HAS NO DECREASED? 

not enough money?

Quoted post

 

I don't even have the ability to understand people on "your side" anymore.

 

My favorite thing I read today was a front page report from the local daily paper that showed how the working class families in my state had income that was barely growing while the cost of rent, real estate, medical bills, and neccesary life expendetures was rising exponentiality. Have you read The Grapes Of Wrath as an adult? The problem is that when left to a free market, which really is much more the state of things just a less "log cabin" version than you would love, the rich are corrupt, which is a powerful word for selfish. The perfect example of this is our modern medical establishment - no pharmaceutical or insurance company today is seeing a loss in profits yet they persue more through laws which protect them - if the government didn't exist as it, do you really think they wouldn't find another way to influence law to benifit them? HELL, thats what this thread itself is about - a violation of STATE law. Your rhetoric about the foundation of our country is just as naive as any socialism ever was....You want to ban gays and let men kill blacks if a state says so, go ahead - there isn't a market for humanity and justice - but the federal government helped over step those "states rights" and made justice happen. States should be self directed, but you can't refuse to pay the fees than ask why the fire company didn't stop your house from burning down (as it was before public fire fighting) - maybe california should just conquer the bible belt and declare it Claifornia 2 - it isn't in the constitution that states can not conquer other states afer all. The concept of a free market with independant states simply does not apply to the modern world where if this state says 'no', the company can simply move to the next. It happens with thrid world countries all the time - its a race to the bottom and the current deflation of the American middle class proves that given the ability to get the cheapest labor no matter the cost, no company relies on "friendship" or "family" as a test of there actions. You can't ask your neighbor for a handout when they are already asking theres for one too...

 

socialism as its been practices was not as should be. Sweden is a socialist democratic state and its doing just fine with the CEO of Volvo getting taxed like hell...

[angelofdeath]

thanks for putting words in my mouth. i find it hilarious that as soon as any decentralization of the numerous worthless federal programs is mentioned you immediately scream that I want to "ban gay people and kill blacks." this is just extremely funny to me. socialism is bull shit. our country had a REVOLUTION because England put a fucking tax on tea and stamps, and now we surrender half of our income to useless government beauracracies. your ideas of socialism sound well and good, but history has proven whenever you hear things to good to be true, it always takes a turn for the worst. nazi germany come to mind? communist russia come to mind? free healthcare and every one is equal right?

 

i dont even know what you are talking about california conquering another state. i guess they could try, it was tried before, during the War Between the States.

 

the fact of the matter is you dont understand the constitution or what it is set up to do. the federal government is very limited and the constitution specifically states what it is allowed to do. the states composed of "we the people" created the federal government. what are some simple things it can do? it regulates the free market zone between the states, it regulates foreign commerce, provides a common defense, establishes post roads, and maintains a navy. there are more, but you get the drift. it recognizes our rights from our creator and proceeds to tell the government to keep the fuck off and establishes the government to protect them. no where does it say "everyone shall recieve the same income and wealth status, at the expense of other citizens."

 

you want to bring up "christian morals" yet you want to steal from people, to give it to someone else. we are 50 governments not one. each state was designed to be sovereign. you mention that states want to kill blacks and im sure you were implying jim crow. apply your logic to iraq. there was genocide in iraq, bush stepped in, why is this bad? its the same thing you want done to the states. so in another words your a neo con?

 

we are a republic, founded on individual freedom, self reliance, limited federal government, and sovereign states. a strong central government is easiest to promote tyranny.

[KaBar2]

The Houston Chronicle reports that Travis County prosecutors issued a subpoena Friday for the head of MoveOn.org, a liberal Democratic political organization "founded for the 2004 elections as a means of getting around new federal campaign finance laws that were designed to limit the influence of money on national elections."

 

Eli Praiser, executive director of MoveOn.org was subpoenaed to testify whether or not District Judge Bob Perkins (a well-known liberal Democrat who donated money to Democrat Party organizations, including MoveOn.org) should be removed from hearing the criminal case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay.

 

Rep. DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin (he was also one of the attorneys for the surviving Branch Davidians railroaded into prison) has asked to have Judge Perkins removed from the case due to the perception of bias. He gave money to MoveOn.org, and they have been attacking Rep. DeLay in order to raise money.

 

Rep. DeLay is charged with violating Texas state election laws, money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The indictments allege that Rep. DeLay and two associates had a scheme to circumvent state laws prohibiting the use of corporate money in campaigns for public office. (This same law ALSO prohibits the use of LABOR UNIUON FUNDS the same way, but of course, the Democrat Party and MoveOn.org wouldn't know anything about secretly using union funds for political purposes....)

 

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle also filed a brief Friday claiming DeGuerin had failed to point to any campaign contributions that would show Judge Perkins would be biased against Rep. DeLay as his trial judge. The motion included three affidavits from Travis Co. lawyers (all Democrats, I'll wager) testifying to Perkins' fairness as a judge. Mr. Earle also subpoenaed records from the Texas Ethics Commission for all political donations made by criminal district court judges in Travis, Dallas and Tarrant counties from 2000 to 2005. A check of these records showed most had made political contributions to their local party offices, but few had made federal political contributions.

 

Perkins asked for the removal hearing because he said DeGuerin's motion raises questions about whether a judge of one political party can oversee the case of a politician from the opposing party.

Texas judges face partisan elections to keep their seats. Retired District Judge C.W. "Bud" Duncan, Jr. is scheduled to hear the removal case Tuesday. The Democrat was picked for the case by the regional administrative judge, B.B. Schraub, a registered Republican.

[Guest KING BLING]

Judges!

 

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A new judge has been appointed to preside over Rep. Tom DeLay's campaign finance trial after two judges stepped away from their involvement in the case because of their political contributions.

 

But judicial wrangling left the validity of Thursday's appointment of semiretired Senior Judge Pat Priest of San Antonio in question.

 

Priest, a Democrat, was selected to replace District Judge Bob Perkins, who was removed Tuesday at DeLay's request because of his contributions to Democrats.

 

Republican Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub had been named earlier Thursday to select a new presiding judge after Perkins was removed, but he withdrew at the request of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle because of his political contributions to GOP candidates.

 

Schraub then asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson to name the new judge and Jefferson selected Priest.

 

But at about the same time, the district attorney asked that Jefferson to withdraw from the process. Earle's office had no immediate comment Friday on the selection of Priest or what the next step would be.

 

Jefferson's 2002 campaign treasurer, Bill Ceverha, was treasurer of DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, according to state documents examined by The Associated Press.

 

The PAC is a co-defendant in DeLay's case and Ceverha was a defendant this spring in a civil trial brought by Democrats who lost state legislative races to Republicans in 2002.

 

Jefferson also was elected to his seat with the help of a $25,000 donation from the Republican National State Elections Committee, a group at the heart of the money laundering charge against DeLay.

 

He also received $2,000 from a DeLay-run PAC whose executive director is a co-defendant.

 

Lawyers on both sides in DeLay's case have argued that political contributions by judges have harmed at least the appearance of impartiality. But in a state where judges are elected and free to contribute to candidates and political parties, it could be a challenge to find a judge who meets both sides' definition of impartial.

 

DeLay is charged with illegally funneling corporate campaign contributions to Republican candidates for the 2002 legislative races. The Texas Republican was forced to step down as House majority leader after being indicted.

 

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin agreed that the system of electing partisan judges is flawed, but he criticized Earle for setting Thursday's situation in motion.

 

Earle said Schraub should remove himself because he has given money to GOP candidates including Gov. Rick Perry, an ally in DeLay's successful effort to redraw congressional districts to benefit Republicans.

 

DeLay's contributions to Texas Republicans helped the GOP win control of the Texas House in 2002. Then, in a series of special sessions called by Perry, the GOP pushed through a redistricting plan crafted by DeLay that helped get more Republicans elected to Congress in 2004.

 

Prosecutors also suggested that Schraub, 76, appears politically indebted to Perry, who appointed him as administrative judge and can reappoint him in January.

 

DeLay objected to Perkins, a Democrat, because he has contributed to Democratic candidates such as John Kerry and the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org.

 

The judicial wrangling is "a great shame," said Charles Silver, a legal ethics professor at the University of Texas Law School.

 

"It says that the judges who we elect can't be trusted to apply the law neutrally in cases that in some way, shape or form bear on their political beliefs," Silver said. "If that's true, we really need to revamp the whole system."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/del...t.ap/index.html

[Guest KING BLING]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/21/sr.mon/index.html

 

Cheney to raise funds for DeLay

 

The White House is not distancing itself from embattled former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who is facing charges of breaking state campaign finance law.

 

Vice President Cheney is scheduled to appear at a December 5, Houston fundraiser on DeLay's behalf. Donors are being asked to contribute at least $500, according to an e-mail sent by the Fort Bend (Texas) Republican Party. Shannon Flaherty, DeLay's spokeswoman, confirmed details of the fundraiser.

 

"For five years, Congressman DeLay has served as a key ally to pass the White House's agenda through Congress, and Ronnie Earle's political sideshow isn't going to get in the way of the real business at hand," said Flaherty. "This event shows the Democrat strategy of avenging their ballot box losses with smear tactics and lawsuits is not going to work -- Republicans stick by their friends and don't back down from a fight."

 

DeLay was forced to step down from his leadership position in late September after Earle, the Travis County (Texas) district attorney, charged him with illegally directing corporate donations to Texas candidates. DeLay has asked that his trial be moved from Travis to Fort Bend County.

 

As of September 30, 2005, DeLay had $1.164 million in his warchest. Former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) is challenging DeLay for his seat.