ScottP Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Bananas flambe' is a wickedly tasty treat, especially with dark rum and brown sugar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 BURN MOTHERFUCKER BURN! I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Take this bet: Tom Delay will not be convicted. The 2002 money laundering charge is based ex-post facto on Texas campaign legislation passed in 2004. This prosecutor has tried six other times to get a grand jury indictment and failed. With his complicity, he has had a film crew following him around his office doing a documentary. If, as is now alleged, he allowed this crew access to the grand jury, he himself is guilty of a felony. Nonetheless, this is really about getting a mug shot of Delay and footage of a Republican congressman in cuffs for public consumption. Even when the charges are dropped - and they will be dropped - the goal of this prosecutor is acheived. Dirty politics. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 While Fairweather is probably right that this won't reach the conclusion some hope for, I think the R's should count themselves lucky that the D's don't seem to have the stomach to mount a full scale assault on the R's using the latter's playbook. If you think we're seeing really dirty politics, it's nothing compared to what could happen if the D's develop a collective backbone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Fairweather, let's not forget that it is this guy's JOB to go after politicians as the D.A. in the county where Austin is. If I understand correctly, he prosecuted more democrats, just a few years ago when they were in power, than he has now targetted republicans. Also, if I remember correctly, you were not complaining about dirty politics when the shoe was on the other foot. Have we not seen you talk approvingly about things like the Whitewater investigations (hint: I don't think a single person was ever even indicted), and - lets see - that Monica thing? Am I wrong or were you kinda warm to the idea that Clinton lied, so he had to "face the music?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 It's also pretty obvious that the media is having a field day with this stuff and the Rove affair (Judith Miller shenanigans notwithstanding). Funny how the tide has turned and how the press loves a scandal - of either party. Also interesting how the news media was so gung-ho rah rah when the US first invaded Iraq and nobody dared even question the sanity of it...I'm watching too much tv again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yes, scandals sell newspapers. But are they really over-hyping these stories? The president, vice-president, and their highest advisors all lie about why we need to start a war that has thus far turned out poorly, and then they engaged in a coordinated campaign to cover their lies, and they are not really even denying it. Maybe they will, but so far I havn't seen where they clearly stated that they actually BELIEVED that Saddam had the centrifuge or was trying to purchase Uranium, nor have I seen them say they didn't have a plan to discredit Wilson or that Libby says he didn't ask Miller to describe him as an ex senate staffer or whatever it was instead of a high ranking official in the White House. And Cheney has not said, since the VP Debate, that he never tried to link Saddam to 911. Nope, they don't seem to really deny any of this stuff -- they just work to spin it. "Wah wah wah, these "attacks" are politically motivated... " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I guess they're top stories for now...until Wilma makes land anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Sandi Burger was just convicted of stealing and destroying Clinton-era 9/11-related documents from the national archives. Almost nothing from the press. Whatever. Tom Delay is a powerful Republican who redistricted his home state. I don't blame the press, necessarily, for circling like drueling hounds. The fact remains though; Delay will not be convicted. Likely he will not even face a trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 circling like drueling hounds. Oh! The irony of that mis-spelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 A hybridization of dueling/drooling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Tom Delay is a powerful Republican who redistricted his home state. Now *THAT* move was about the dirtiest political sham in quite a while. Any campaign finance illegalities are of little consequence compared to the power grab the Republicans made in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I'll say it before Fairweather does: redistricting is a dirty tool that both parties use. The recent Texas one was pretty notable, in that it achieved the goals of the party in power, but I'm sure a little research will turn up occasions when the Democrats gave the pendulum a good push in their direction somewhere or other. The problem is more the mechanics of redistricting itself, rather than the machinations of either party. DRUeling hounds, you know, two dogs fighting to exhaustion when neither will admit they could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 The recent Texas one was pretty notable, in that it achieved the goals of the party in power Arresting legislators to get them to vote on redistricting is notable, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Take this bet: Tom Delay will not be convicted. The 2002 money laundering charge is based ex-post facto on Texas campaign legislation passed in 2004. This prosecutor has tried six other times to get a grand jury indictment and failed. With his complicity, he has had a film crew following him around his office doing a documentary. If, as is now alleged, he allowed this crew access to the grand jury, he himself is guilty of a felony. Nonetheless, this is really about getting a mug shot of Delay and footage of a Republican congressman in cuffs for public consumption. Even when the charges are dropped - and they will be dropped - the goal of this prosecutor is acheived. Dirty politics. Plain and simple. Hey Fairweather note that when I first brought up DA Earle's actions that Mattp, probabaly as a routine debating response, called them Bullshit! You forgot to mention his referencing the Delay investigation at a purely partisan fundraiser. Check the Houston Chron.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yup, both sides do it -- redistricting AND launching "ethics" investigations of opposing political personalities. Undoubtedly there was some "politically motivated" support for this DeLay prosecution, but RIGHT NOW lets not simply say "both sides do it" and ignore what is going on: the very same people who, just a few years ago were hamering on their bibles about how Clinton lied or were all stirred up about "travelgate" are now saying that the current investigations of DeLay, Bush's cabinet, and the lobbyist Abramoff are all politically motivated and they are attacking the investigations and investigators. If it was a high ranking democrat who was under indictment, I somehow doubt Fairweather would be arguing here that "it is just a political ploy and I bet poor Mr. Kennedy is not going to be prosecuted..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Bullshit, PP. I did not dispute your assertion that Earl had allowed a movie maker to follow him around - if that is what you are referring to. I would say, however, that once again you are probably attacking the prosecutor because you can't defend the prosecuted. (AND, after calling "bullshit" on my post about how GW and his boys lied, I'll note that you still haven't refuted my given examples ... but that is another thread.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Bullshit, PP. Now that's the spirit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Matt - What is being said is that Earle has abused his position. In another thread I asked a simple question earlier which you chose not to answer: "Has Earle acted properly?" I gave several examples of behavior that I thought was evidence that he wasn't acting properly. I ask - 1 -Would letting a film crew follow his investigation and giving them access to evidence and a grand jury be something you consider "proper"? 2 - Is talking about the investigation at a purely partisan fundraiser proper behavior for a DA? 3 - Is it unreasonable to question a DA's motivation & tactics? This is a big concern when he has a history of not actually bringing cases to court. This thread is about the Delay prosecution. Certainly these issues are a very real part of the case and the topic of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Peter- As the Clinton era showed, just because their are highly partisan people prosecuting you doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 What I love is how some people seem to think that because they belong to a certain political party, no one in that party is capable of committing a crime. While these little political witch hunts are reprehensible, let's not kid ourselves that both sides are dirty as sin in this regard. Let's not have any faux indignation that somehow 'it's all political'. No shit, Sherlock. Of course it is. Look how desperately, and how much money was spent, trying to pin *anything* on Clinton. Is anyone willing to say we should *not* indict political figures to avoid the appearance of being political? I thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 What I love is how some people seem to think that because they belong to a certain political party, no one in that party is capable of committing a crime. Too true. I, on the other hand, do not belong to any political party. And I've committed lots of crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 the other point being that what they 'convicted' him of didn't have anything to do with what they originally tried to hang on him. if that wasn't a political witch hunt, i don't know what was, esp when you had rich business men funding efforts to find *anything* on him, rather than, as some right wingers would have it, 'respecting the presidency' regardless of his political stripes. we have the government we deserve, gentlemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yes indeed, Foraker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camilo Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 agebottom: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.