• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arrest warrant issued for Tom DeLay

Luke T. said:
It might surprise you to know that I am very much looking forward to the Republican Party facing the music. It has allowed itself to be taken over by people who are ruining it, and needs to be whipped back into shape.

I would like to see some non-elected people who call themselves "conservatives" get their comeuppance as well. A certain blonde female commentator springs to mind.
Click to expand...

I get that.
 
Somebody earlier in this thread called Tom Decay dangerous. There we differ. I don’t think he’s particularly dangerous, just contemptible. He illustrates Lord Acton’s dictum about power and corruption. In his case, as so often in democracies, the power is more illusory than real (and aren’t we all glad!), but the corruption is genuine: the man really and truly thinks he’s entitled to do anything he wants. But take note of what he wants. His ambition only runs to sleazy politics. If he were a really dangerous man, he’d have gunsels and kidnappers working for him; he’d be a menace instead of a peccant clown.

No no, Our Tom isn’t a gangster. He doesn’t hire pistoleros and firebombers. He doesn’t, he doesn’t. Things aren’t that bad yet. I’m going to keep saying this until bedtime. Then I’ll be safe under the covers.
 
Luke T. said:
And then Party B begins to undo the gerrymandering put in place by Party A.
Click to expand...




BUSH ADMINISTRATION FIGHTS FIRE WITH FIRE
THE WHITE HOUSE IS FORCED TO EVACUATE

firewh.JPEG
 
manny said:
Exactly the same way. Rule 5, Chapter A, Section 8 of the Rules and Prececents of the Texas House provides that "(a)ll absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained. The house shall determine on what conditions they shall be discharged." Break the rule, suffer the consequences. The miscreant members knew that -- that's why they had to run to Oklahoma. They knew that if they stayed in Texas the Rangers would come and get them and haul their asses to work.
Click to expand...


I didn't have an issue with the arrests, and it was a Democratic dirty trick to leave the state.

The uproar was mainly about the timing of it. As corrupt and power hungry as it was, the gerrymandering was done after the census every 10 years, with the last one being done in 2000. Admittedly, the Democrats did better than they should have.

However, IIRC there had never been an attempt to redistrict outside of a census year, even though it was legal to do so. The timing of the redistricting was very favorable for Republicans though, as pointed out earlier that the Republicans gained House seats because of it where they would have otherwise lost without the redistricting.

Add in that the push and backing for the redistricting was from a national representative instead of coming from the Texas state legislature and the whole thing reeks of political convenience and perilously overruns federal and state seperatation.

Now, the whole thing was legal, so it won't be reversed. However, at such point in time that the Democrats regain power, the precendent is now to redistrict as soon as possible to make it favorable to your party, instead of the gentlemen's agreement of every census year like it had been for a century before.

Much like the Republicans changing the felony indictment rules for house leaders before the election (They smartly reversed course afterwards), the noncensus year redistricting has set the bar lower for partisan politics.

Not that I care to have sunshine and flowers between the parties all the time, but unprecedented political oppurtunism organized at a national level was, IMO, as deplorable as the Texas Democrat's gerrymandering.
 
Luke T. said:
These must be lawyers who aren't familiar with that part of the law which says "innocent until proven definitely guilty".
Click to expand...
That's in the eyes of the law. No reason for private citizens not to express opinions about someone's guilt -- whether it be Clinton or DeLay.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Also, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
No he's not. If he did it, he's guilty. Guilt doesn't depend on being found out, charged, or convicted. Any guilt-worthy act brings guilt with it. In the eyes of the law a person is innocent until proven guilty. In reality, a person is guilty of something the moment they do it.
 
Furious said:
I didn't have an issue with the arrests, and it was a Democratic dirty trick to leave the state.
Click to expand...
The issue is less whether or not sending the Texas DPS after the Democrat legislators was justified (as I understand, Texas state legislature rules provided for that), and more whether it was justifiable for the Texas state government to avail itself of federal resources to pursue what was exclusively a state matter, and, in the case of DeLay's involvement, whether it is proper for a federal official to involve himself in what is exclusively a state matter.
 
Luke T. said:
These must be lawyers who aren't familiar with that part of the law which says "innocent until proven definitely guilty".
Click to expand...

Hiya Luke!

Now, you know that appears nowhere in any law book. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Innocent until proven guilty, yes; but look what we know. We know they conspired to get around the Texas campaign laws. The question is only, was DeLay involved enough to be culpable.
 
Last edited:
Luke T. said:
It might surprise you to know that I am very much looking forward to the Republican Party facing the music. It has allowed itself to be taken over by people who are ruining it, and needs to be whipped back into shape.

I would like to see some non-elected people who call themselves "conservatives" get their comeuppance as well. A certain blonde female commentator springs to mind.
Click to expand...

I am more delighted than you can imagine to read this.

Welcome back to the reality-based world.
 
Euromutt said:
The issue is less whether or not sending the Texas DPS after the Democrat legislators was justified (as I understand, Texas state legislature rules provided for that), and more whether it was justifiable for the Texas state government to avail itself of federal resources to pursue what was exclusively a state matter, and, in the case of DeLay's involvement, whether it is proper for a federal official to involve himself in what is exclusively a state matter.
Click to expand...
That's because the press is lazy and didn't realize that that information is public and available to anyone who asks. All flightplans filed with the FAA are collected and distributed in real-time. Here is the website of one of the many data resellers. Check out the "quick-track" feature.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
That's in the eyes of the law. No reason for private citizens not to express opinions about someone's guilt -- whether it be Clinton or DeLay.
Click to expand...

Intentionally forming an opinion without valuable information.

No he's not. If he did it, he's guilty. Guilt doesn't depend on being found out, charged, or convicted. Any guilt-worthy act brings guilt with it. In the eyes of the law a person is innocent until proven guilty. In reality, a person is guilty of something the moment they do it.
Click to expand...

Confusing the issue. The only way one could form a real opinion on an individual's guilt is to look at the evidence.

(This quote may have been tongue in cheek...not sure.)

I'm celebrating because he is a first class a$$hole and a phoney piece of crap.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. His "a$$hole" status doesn't matter.

Aren't these opinions bothering anyone? This is a skeptic website, can't we do better?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Is it an Ad hominem if it is true? I never took a debate class.
Click to expand...

Of course it's true, he is a politician. Irrelevent though.



Sure it does. If a truly great person were indicted, I wouldn't celebrate.
Click to expand...

So if an a$$hole is wrongly accused, then everything is going well? Even well enough to throw a party? (Of course I'm not actually saying that Tommy is innocent but it is a possibility. A possibility that I am inclined to respect until proven otherwise.)

What would be a greater cause for celebration?

1) A jerk wrongly accused.

2) A great man rightly accused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom