Yay now Republican felons can stay in office!

What an important piece of legislation to pass

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/17/delay.ap/index.html

Here is the TV Guide blurb:

House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on state political corruption charges.

Something new everyday...what are these people smoking? Felons cannot vote but go ahead and lead the country, that is A-OKay

Ohh and what is he doing with his face...somebody should give him some cherry flavored pepto...

Um, innocent til proven guilty......

YAY.. Senate Democrats have repeatedly embraced the Kennedy legend.. and TEddy in particular... someone who admits to having driven a young lady off a bridge and then left her for dead. Yep... this admirable gentleman did his duty and reported the acciden tto the authorities just as he should have - some 12 hours later, after his PR people advised him what to do and how to spin his story.

Go for it. Republicans are shit. Democrats are pure in terms of morals.

Yeah you right!

You should really let go of your anger korg and seek some professional help.

You offering a liberal opinion there or simple concern for another?

Oh. Wait. I get it. You didn't get that I was merely pointing out the bias in the thread itself. You jumped to yet another misbegotten conclusion.

Go howl somewhere else Jackal.

Ah I see, so that makes it alright. Instead of responding to how lame this thing is, you just say UHHHHH THEY DID IT TOOO!!! Great reply. BTW, had the Democrats done something this lame I would have pointed it out, too, as I am not a registered Democrat and have voted for non-brain dead Republicans. My bias is against lameness and corruption, and this is the height of abuse of power.

See Korg, this is exactly what I mean. You are so angry and for what? I don't get it. Why don't you try having a calm debate. People might actually be interested in what you have to say then or maybe not. Oh why do I bother, your so angry you'll probably quote this and type out more text of hate and anger.

Peace,
MJ

P.S.
Its MrsJakal, not Jackal

Nope. I typed what I meant. You act like a jackal. If you need an explanation of that, go do a google search on jackals behavior.

As for your evaluation of my psyche - angry or not - you really should know that if you take both hands and reach around behind yourself.. there is a place for that thought. You can probably find it without assistance... but, if you need some... I do have the number of a proctologist for you.

Now you are just not making any sense. I feel sorry for you

Nope. The height of lameness and corruption, at least imho, is self-righteous people unable to admit or see their own biases. More often than not, liberals seem to commit this error in the name of "humanity" and/or eauqlity. Well, guess what?

I never argue "they did it too". Here, I pointed out a bit of hypocrisy by someone who seems more often than not to post what I consider to be liberal crap. There is an argument to be made that I post on the opposite end of the spectrum - but that usually is not made. Instead, "counter-posts" rely on ad hominems refusing to deal with the arguments made or admit the perspectival biases of such posts.

Not a registered Democrat and you have voted for non-brain-dead Republicans? Wow. Let me give you a lollipop. If you can't see the horseshit bias in that statement, well, there's no point in my telling you about it, is there?

Korg, hypocrisy is never a valid counter-argument. Cristiano made an excellent point, and on the same lines, I think Ted Kennedy should have been thrown out of office, too.

I will remind you that Bush pled guilty to drunk driving before being elected, making him the only President ever to be convicted of a crime.

Not to mention that a large percentage (I think it was 40-ish, I'll have to look it up) of Congress has drug and/or drunk driving offenses in their past.

Personally, I think political corruption charges are a solid reason to remove someone. Ironically, it was a Republican bill that is being reconsidered. Wahhhh!
They allege it is a politically motivated indictment, but you know what? I don't think that matters. Any indictment still requires solid evidence or a judge would throw it out.

Both parties have plenty of corrupt pols. The problem is politics is a bad influence on the folks who take it up.

Sigh... Hiro hiro hero... what else should/.could we expect from you?

"charges are a solid reason to remove someone"??? Really? Not convictions? Just being chareged? Yep yep yep. makes perfect sense to me.

Bush pled guilty... and was elected in spite of it. Sounds to me like "the people" made a choice.

The rest of your statement sare as pointless and trollish as usual..

(Singing) Hiro.. please be my hero! I need a hero... to come save me!!! form Hiro.. wannabe Hero... Come on now Hiro... be the big Hero..... Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

Well...but then there's this:

Rutherford B. Hayes was charged with the theft of a half-wheel of cheese.

Teddy Roosevelt was charged with rustling cattle in North Dakota.

Warren G. Harding was charged with tax evasion.

Richard Nixon was a "co-conspirator" in a plot to steal a national election.

They were all Republicans...sense a pattern here?

But then again -- the founder of the Democratic Party -- Andrew Jackson -- was convicted of bigamy, and Grover Cleveland, another Democrat, faced charges for non-support of a child born out of wedlock....To say nothing of the amorous adventures of FDR, JFK, and William Jefferson you-know-who....

So the Republicans have problems with kleptomania and corruption, and the Democrats have trouble with their sexuality.... And I supposed American voters keep electing Republicans because they are serious about their vices of power, and not just silly, like the Democrats.

Wow, you have an odd definition of trolling, Korg.

Imagine Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kazinski going about their daily lives instead of being in jail while they awaited trial and conviction? Dangerous to peoples' lives? Yes.

Imagine Saddam Hussein, who is still pending trial, allowed to participate in Iraqi government and run in upcoming elections? Dangerous to a nation? Yes.

Imagine the heads of Enron and Tyco allowed to continue to run corporations as they are on trial for multi-billion dollar scandals. Dangerous to business and the economy? Yes.

How is this any different? If you have evidence enough to arrest and indict someone for a crime that directly threatens the job they do and/or peoples' welfare, then they should be honorably suspended from your job until a time that the charges are dropped.

When police officers are involved in shootings, they are automatically given paid suspension pending a review of the shooting.

When a priest or other caregiver is accused of sexual abuse of a minor, parents cry out for the person to be put on leave until it is resolved.

When ANY NORMAL PERSON WHO IS NOT RICH OR FAMOUS is arrested and indicted for a crime, they are thrown in jail. Yes, they are innocent. Yes, they are also removed from society because if someone is arrested and indicted, the likilihood that they committed the crime is high.

It doesn't mean they're guilty. It just means that police aren't stupid. The alternative would be to let criminals roam the streets.

brrrrrrrrrrrp.. now I feel better.... oops.. wait.. that load of garbage is coming out the other end now.... gotta run...I guess you get the point that I think your post was not worth a serious reponse... as usual.

Why is his post not worth a response? He makes incredibly valid points. Tom Delay is an elected official in a position of power. If he is indicted by a grand jury, which is hardly some trivial thing, he should step down pending the outcome of the indictment, if for no other reason that his legal woes would obviously be the priority over his job. This applies already to teachers, police officers and other public servants, of which Tom Delay is. You don't have to be partisan to call a spade a spade - this reeks of favoritism and hypocrisy, and would under any political party. The fact that it is a party in power makes it even more serious.

Apparently you (and others) are overlooking the Democrat from what, one of the Great Lake states a couple years ago, who was convicted of a huge fraud thing and eventually went to Federal prison over it - sorry, I forget his name, but remember that he denied it right up until he walked into prison, then admited he was wrong and guilty. He was not only defended by Democrats then, he was encouraged to run again while under indictment and undergoing trial. (Maybe Dimenici (sp)?)

And the politician who drunkenly ran a stopsign at a crossroads and killed that boy in Wisconsin or Minnesota was it? Left the scene of the accident. Didn't file an accident report. Seems he is still in office.... Doe sit really matter WHICH party he was in to the family of the kid killed?

The point is..in this thread there is some very selective use of perspective here. Hiro's points are not relevant as they ignore the difference between empty charges, indictments and convictions. A conviction means that you have been found guilty of breakinga law. An indictment doesn't mean any such thing. Many indictments - especially of political figures - are for purely political purposes.. not for the purpose of upholding the law.

That any Republican is indicted of anything is no more serious right now than that of any Democrat is ---- unless you happen to be ridiculously/blindly biased. Which is the case with most people who post in the forums. THAT is calling a spade a spade... not Hiro's diatribe.

No, neither of us have defended them. I even stated that I think all of these people should be suspended once indicted. I believe in the case of your examples, they were.


Charges can be empty, I agree. But, and I say this for the third time, you can not get an indictment without a grand jury and judge deciding that there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal case.


It's arguable that this upcoming indictment is politically motivated, but regardless of the motivation, see above - you can not get an indictment without a grand jury and judge deciding that there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal case. Does this mean that the prosecuter indicting him isn't a partisan jerk? No, he very well may be.

This is precisely why Republicans lobbied for this law that would suspend him. Further, it was clear that the whole Clinton impeachment was politically motivated, and yet Clinton still did lie under oath nonetheless.

Korg, please point out where me or Cristiano have been one-sided about this? Where has either of us said that it's okay for Democrats to stay in office and not Republicans under the same situation? You won't find it.

Gosh darn, there's nothing left of your argument, Korg.

I'll step up to the Republican plate and say this was wrong. Now I'm going to read my sig line and smile.

Your right Korg - both parties have presented representatives that are guilty as hell of numerous atrocities. The difference here is that only the republicans passed leglislation saying that it was OK.

Well it really shouldn't be of any great suprise. I mean Bush and Cheney are in office. The only problem is no one wants to open their eyes wide enough to see the big picture, because money is flowing into all the right pockets.

Say what you will but they crimes these two are guilty of make whitewater and the Iran Contra's pale in comparison.

History will be left to tell this tale, because its obvious there aren't enough good people who want to look at the facts and do anything about it.

This will shock everyone I'm sure, but I think this is being blown way out of proportion. The rule change by the Republicans was a good move in the interest of fairness. People are confusing being indicted with being convicted. All they're doing is saying that you have to be convicted of a crime before being tossed out, rather than having to only be accused of a crime. I believe that's how it should be, considering we're all supposed to believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Now, if DeLay is convicted and the Republicans try to change the rules to say that a convicted felon can serve, then I'll be as hopping mad as the rest of you.