Tom Delay and ethics - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

boneheaddoctor · #91 11-19-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimSmith

Once again, what does any of this have to do with the actual subject being discussed? Delay is being investigated because his "associates" (more like his direct reports) have been indicted for suspicion of criminal behavior. Because it looks like he will be indicted, and the rules formerly in effect call for his removal from his position of power as the head Republican in the House if that happens, the rules were changed. This, while the Republican message before the election was all about how moral and ethical they are, seems somewhat like a sham. If you want to defend what was done for some reason that does not involve Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Daschle, or some other of say, Santa's reindeer who might be liberals, please do so. But throwing clouds of other, non-relevant stink in the air is a losing tactic. You appear to have nothing.

By the way the Strom Thurmond casualty was a casualty because of his own party. They dropped him like the wet, slippery turd they figured him to be, not the Democrats. The Democrats had nothing to do with his demise there. It was a Republican decided issue. No Democrats get to vote on that selection. While you may not have forgotten the incident you surely lost track of the details.

Jim

And what did Shanes comment that I was answering have to do with it either.... Don't see a comment directed at him now do I? Or is it only the republicans that get a scolding here?

And it was the democrats that started raising holy hell over that issue. Then the Liberal media making a huge deal out of it. The republicans made a huge mistake by knucking under in that issue. You are only Partially right, You left out what started that one, who made it an issue, and why they made it an issue. That was the democrats. And I believe the republicans that jumped in were wrong in not defending him, and were wrong in voting him out of his position. That won't happen again after what has happened with the recent election. BiPartisan is a word the dems don't understand.

The Democrats have a history of changing the rules to suit what they want to do when they want to do it. Don't make it look like its only the republicans that do it. A politician is a politician....regardless of what party.

KirkVining · #92 11-19-2004, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

And what did Shanes comment that I was answering have to do with it either.... Don't see a comment directed at him now do I? Or is it only the republicans that get a scolding here?

And it was the democrats that started raising holy hell over that issue. Then the Liberal media making a huge deal out of it. The republicans made a huge mistake by knucking under in that issue. You are only Partially right, You left out what started that one, who made it an issue, and why they made it an issue. That was the democrats. And I believe the republicans that jumped in were wrong in not defending him, and were wrong in voting him out of his position.

Perhaps you didn't notice President Bush dropping Trent like a rock. You don't know what's good for your own party. Bush is trying to attract black voters. Trent repels them. He had to go, not in the view of the "Liberal press" or the Democrats, but in Bush's view and the view of the rest of the Republican leadership.

boneheaddoctor · #93 11-19-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Perhaps you didn't notice President Bush dropping Trent like a rock. You don't know what's good for your own party. Bush is trying to attract black voters. Trent repels them. He had to go, not in the view of the "Liberal press" or the Democrats, but in Bush's view and the view of the rest of the Republican leadership.

My point was not that they dropped him, its that they never jumped on Bird , Lott and the others who actually committed and lived the events. Trent made a nice comment about Strom and the Dems twisted it beyond the intent that was clear when it was made.

And that was purely partisen....because in all his years in office (strom) where was the outcry from the dems? The silence was deafening.

Let Trent try to make a nice statement for the poor old guy and they jump all over him.

I didn't say I liked the guy, but he clearly got the short end of the stick.

The old double standard.........

KirkVining · #94 11-19-2004, 02:57 PM

Lott was the Republican Majority leader. Only Republicans got to vote on whether he stayed or went. Blaming the Democrats for his demise is about the best example of Koolaid-think I've seen in a while - they don't even get to vote on the issue, its strictly internal Republican Party politics, so ***** at them. What that senile old man Byrd has to do with that equation is beyond me. What does the Republican caucus voting on Lott have to do with "jumping on Byrd"? Are you saying the Republicans should have called Byrd a nasty old man and then given Lott a pass? This Byrd stuff is silly. Lott got the short end of the stick because his fellow Republicans realized he was a buffoon who was costing them votes. Goodbye Trent.

boneheaddoctor · #95 11-19-2004, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Lott was the Republican Majority leader. Only Republicans got vote on whether he stayed or went. Blaming the Democrats for his demise is about the best example of Koolaid-think I've seen in a while. What that senile old man Byrd has to do with that equation is beyond me. What does the Republican caucus voting on Lott have to do with "jumping on Byrd"? This Byrd stuff is silly. He got the short end of the stick because his fellow Republicans realized he was a buffoon who was costing them votes. Goodbye Trent.

Dodging the issue again arent we......

The Dems were raising holey hell, and so was the liberal media.....BEFORE that happened.

KirkVining · #96 11-19-2004, 03:02 PM

Clueless on the issues again aren't we......

JimSmith · #97 11-19-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

.....OH and by the way, the book is not all inclusive . There are large portions omitted.

No kidding and they were omitted because they were squashed by the political interests of someone who thought they could be result in a negative effect on their election chances. There was a hint that after the election this supplemental data would be published but I have heard nothing about it.

Interesting, but has nothing to do with Tom Delay's impending indictment for thuggery and other Mafia-like behavior, and the Republican Party effort to prop him up with his influences over the political machine intact during the investigation, does it?

Jim

KirkVining · #98 11-19-2004, 03:10 PM

its become typical of rightwingers - if the issue is embarassing, talk about something else.

JimSmith · #99 11-19-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

And what did Shanes comment that I was answering have to do with it either.... Don't see a comment directed at him now do I? Or is it only the republicans that get a scolding here?......

boneheaddoctor, if you only made an occasional off topic post and took a load of grief for it, you might have a case. The fact is you have made about a dozen on this thread alone. So, everyone should be striving to be on topic, including me. So I will add a comment about your defense or apparent attempt to defend the Republican Pary action to change the ethics committe rules to excuse Tom Delay.

How do you defend what they did without mentioning Democrats in the sentence? Assume for a minute you are in heaven and there are no Democrats, only Republicans. And the same events happen. How do you defend it?

Jim

boneheaddoctor · #**100** 11-19-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimSmith

boneheaddoctor, if you only made an occasional off topic post and took a load of grief for it, you might have a case. The fact is you have made about a dozen on this thread alone. So, everyone should be striving to be on topic, including me. So I will add a comment about your defense or apparent attempt to defend the Republican Pary action to change the ethics committe rules to excuse Tom Delay.

How do you defend what they did without mentioning Democrats in the sentence? Assume for a minute you are in heaven and there are no Democrats, only Republicans. And the same events happen. How do you defend it?

Jim

Jim......You are talking about guys who vote their own pay raises. They change the rules all the time.........what side has got their panties in a bunch over this change? Delay isn't going to be nominated saint anytime but then no other politician is either on either side. My whole point is its not unusual for these guys to change rules, and whenever they do there is always some reason for it. Dems do it Reps do it too. If he was't a republican you wouldn't be hearing about it right now at all. Thats the difference.

GermanStar · #**101** 11-19-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimSmith

How do you defend what they did without mentioning Democrats in the sentence? Assume for a minute you are in heaven and there are no Democrats, only Republicans. And the same events happen. How do you defend it?

Jim

You're going all the way back to Page 1 (Post 12) with that question. Tried and died...

GermanStar · #**102** 11-19-2004, 03:52 PM

Well what's the fun in bashing Democrats? They lost and are politically impotent on a national level. Would you rather Kerry had won? At least you'd have someone to kick around.

boneheaddoctor · #**103** 11-19-2004, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Well what's the fun in bashing Democrats? They lost and are politically impotent on a national level. Would you rather Kerry had won? At least you'd have someone to kick around.

Whats the need to bash republicans? Half the posts here are dedicated to that exclusively.

GermanStar · #**104** 11-19-2004, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Whats the need to bash republicans? Half the posts here are dedicated to that exclusively.

They're in power -- that's what make them fair game. Better bashed than impotent, don't you think?

boneheaddoctor · #**105** 11-19-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

They're in power -- that's what make them fair game. Better bashed than impotent, don't you think?

So when the Dems were in power why didn't that make them fair game?

You know its this perception that helped the dems lose this time. It makes dems really look like they are incapible of being fair and nice......

Didn't sway me but it did a lot of swing voters.