• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

DeLay in more trouble than we thought?

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

"Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan."
...
"The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options."
...
""This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in minority voting strength," Rich wrote in his concurring opinion. "The state's argument that it has increased minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under careful analysis.""

I wonder why the Republicans in Texas would want to disenfranchise minority voters? Could be because they wanted to gain the 5 additional seats in the House that they got after the new district map was implimented. Even if the courts decide what was done was "legal", it is, at the very least, shady.
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

"Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan."
...
"The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options."
...
""This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in minority voting strength," Rich wrote in his concurring opinion. "The state's argument that it has increased minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under careful analysis.""

I wonder why the Republicans in Texas would want to disenfranchise minority voters? Could be because they wanted to gain the 5 additional seats in the House that they got after the new district map was implimented. Even if the courts decide what was done was "legal", it is, at the very least, shady.




We can always speculate on anybody's "good faith", or "disingenuine" motives, ..but the fact remains that it was found to be legal.

How many people actually believe that O.J. Simpson was innocent, & did not kill his wife, & her friend?

The point is that HE WALKED, ..& it was all done legally!

Most politicians are ALWAYS looking for an edge for their respective party. Does anybody really believe that those recieving welfare, & other such social giveaway gratuities, & programs which benefit millions of people are NOT going to vote for democratic party candidates which credits itself for implementing welfare as a fundalmental legal entitlement?

Both party's are guilty of currying favor to their voters for the votes, & its not always confined to simply talk & party rhetoric either!;)


Tom Delay in more trouble..?? I do not believe he will be in any serious trouble, ..& even less so AFTER he beats the current charge he has been indicted for, ..as a trial jury is going to be hard pressed to convict him UNLESS he KNOWINGLY, & WILLFULLY broke campaign finance laws & unless there is PROOF for it!

Unlike in the political world, .. whereas many people are counted as ''guilty" because of appearances, & a scandalous media ..it will NOT be as such when it reaches the courts, unless of course the prosecution has Delay absolutely dead to wrong, & the proof of it to go along with the charges.

In that event Tom Delay will be toasted & successfully prosecuted, ..if NOT...the democratic party is going to take a BIG hit for "criminalizing" successful party politicians that it cannot defeat fairly through the election process.

Some may say; "The democratic party are not the ones prosecuting Delay"...which is quite true.

On the otherhand, ..it has been the democratic party leadership that has made every effort to have Tom Delay viewed as corrupt, & shady in his political dealings because Delay has been very successful in shoring up support for many of Bush's policies.

It just "might" be an interesting trial!
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am glad that this is getting attention. The part of DOJ that addresses voting issues voted UNANIMOUSLY against the redistricting that DeLay had created. Yet, the republicans in Texas still passed it, completely ignoring the recommendation from Justice.

For Gonzales to come on TV and say that a judge okay'ed it is just ludicrous. Normally judges will defer to what the states support. Also, he pointed out that an African American congressman was voted into office that year. Oh really? Well, that district that they had created was primarily black. Sheesh.

We reap what we sow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201945.html
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
I am glad that this is getting attention. The part of DOJ that addresses voting issues voted UNANIMOUSLY against the redistricting that DeLay had created. Yet, the republicans in Texas still passed it, completely ignoring the recommendation from Justice.

For Gonzales to come on TV and say that a judge okay'ed it is just ludicrous. Normally judges will defer to what the states support. Also, he pointed out that an African American congressman was voted into office that year. Oh really? Well, that district that they had created was primarily black. Sheesh.

We reap what we sow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201945.html
Delay is not in all that much trouble. This is clearly a political witchhunt. While it will likely cost him his leadership position in the House, he won't be doing any jail time. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for the continuance of the politicas of personal destruction.

As for the redistricting, Democrats are the last ones who should be crying foul. After what the Democrats did in Georgia in 2001 with redistricting, I will never have sympathy for any complaints that they may make. For the record, staffers at the DOJ RECOMMENDED that the map not be accepted and the Attorney General (whose has the right to make these decisions) decided that it didn't violate the Voting Rights Act. Personally, I believe that this provision of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it selectively infringes on the rights of states. But that is another debate.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ludahai said:
Delay is not in all that much trouble. This is clearly a political witchhunt. While it will likely cost him his leadership position in the House, he won't be doing any jail time. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for the continuance of the politicas of personal destruction.

As for the redistricting, Democrats are the last ones who should be crying foul. After what the Democrats did in Georgia in 2001 with redistricting, I will never have sympathy for any complaints that they may make. For the record, staffers at the DOJ RECOMMENDED that the map not be accepted and the Attorney General (whose has the right to make these decisions) decided that it didn't violate the Voting Rights Act. Personally, I believe that this provision of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it selectively infringes on the rights of states. But that is another debate.
Who said anything about jail time on this issue? I certainly didn't. It just reminds everyone how unscrupulous DeLay is. The republicans should be ashamed of themselves since they promised in their "Contract with America" that they would be more ethical than the democrats. I guess they breached that contract, huh? LOL

It is very unusual for the Attorney General to accept a policy that has been unanimously voted against.

Tell me what happened in Georgia.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
JustMyPOV said:
Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

"Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan."
...
"The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options."
...
""This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in minority voting strength," Rich wrote in his concurring opinion. "The state's argument that it has increased minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under careful analysis.""

I wonder why the Republicans in Texas would want to disenfranchise minority voters? Could be because they wanted to gain the 5 additional seats in the House that they got after the new district map was implimented. Even if the courts decide what was done was "legal", it is, at the very least, shady.
Do you know what disenfranchise means? :confused:
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Who said anything about jail time on this issue? I certainly didn't. It just reminds everyone how unscrupulous DeLay is. The republicans should be ashamed of themselves since they promised in their "Contract with America" that they would be more ethical than the democrats. I guess they breached that contract, huh? LOL

It is very unusual for the Attorney General to accept a policy that has been unanimously voted against.

Tell me what happened in Georgia.
As for the COntract with America, that was a list of specific proposals (I don't have the list off hand) and it was mostly kept.

As for Georgia. In 2001, the Democratic legislature and governor rammed through a redistricting plan that was blatently gerrymanded and created multiple-member districts specifically for the purpose or diluting Republican voting strength. Prior to 2001, the Republicans held an 8-3 majority in the House delegation. The Democrats drew districts to try to get a 7-6 minority (Georgia gained two seats in reapportionment), though they lost one they thought they would win. They did win that seat two years later. For State House and Senate seats, they deliberatly drew districts that cut apart Republican voting areas to dilute their numbers, and created multiple member districts to overwhelm Republicans in other areas. For example, you create a three-member district (with three times the population as a normal district) from three districts that would be two Democratic and one Republican. Combine them and all of the sudden you get THREE Democrats where before you only had two.

Fortunately, the Georgia voters were disgusted by this naked Democratic power play and handed power over to Republicans. Since then, the Republicans have drawn far more sensible boundaries that will take effect in the next election. Expect the Republicans to gain two or three seats in Georgia in next year's Congressional election due to redistricting.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
As for the redistricting, Democrats are the last ones who should be crying foul. After what the Democrats did in Georgia in 2001 with redistricting, I will never have sympathy for any complaints that they may make. For the record, staffers at the DOJ RECOMMENDED that the map not be accepted and the Attorney General (whose has the right to make these decisions) decided that it didn't violate the Voting Rights Act. Personally, I believe that this provision of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it selectively infringes on the rights of states. But that is another debate.
I never suggested that it was right for the Democratic party in Georgia to do this. I assure you that I find any use of redistricting for party gains by either party equally appalling. If you could tell me why it was ok for Texas Republicans, but not ok for Georgia Democrats, I'd genuinely appreciate it. I'm just not seeing much of a difference.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ludahai said:
As for the COntract with America, that was a list of specific proposals (I don't have the list off hand) and it was mostly kept.
I've got the contract website right here:
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Here are some relevant paragraphs that, in my personal opinion, have been breached:

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

DeLay
Frist
Cunningham

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

The government has gotten bigger since Bush took office.
Congress intruded on a personal issue in the Terri Schiavo case.
Look at our deficit.
Respects values of the American family? Are DeLay's, Frist's and Cunningham's behavior indicative of people who respect values?

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

End scandal and disgrace? I don't think so. Bwahahahahhaha

As for Georgia. In 2001, the Democratic legislature and governor rammed through a redistricting plan that was blatently gerrymanded and created multiple-member districts specifically for the purpose or diluting Republican voting strength. Prior to 2001, the Republicans held an 8-3 majority in the House delegation. The Democrats drew districts to try to get a 7-6 minority (Georgia gained two seats in reapportionment), though they lost one they thought they would win. They did win that seat two years later. For State House and Senate seats, they deliberatly drew districts that cut apart Republican voting areas to dilute their numbers, and created multiple member districts to overwhelm Republicans in other areas. For example, you create a three-member district (with three times the population as a normal district) from three districts that would be two Democratic and one Republican. Combine them and all of the sudden you get THREE Democrats where before you only had two.

Fortunately, the Georgia voters were disgusted by this naked Democratic power play and handed power over to Republicans. Since then, the Republicans have drawn far more sensible boundaries that will take effect in the next election. Expect the Republicans to gain two or three seats in Georgia in next year's Congressional election due to redistricting.
Assuming that's true, then they are just as bad as the republicans in Texas.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Why is this considered an issue when its a requirement?...:confused:

The Texas Constitution requires the legislature to redistrict house and senate seats during its first regular session following publication of each United States decennial census (Section 28, Article III). The federal constitution calls for reapportionment of congressional seats according to population from a decennial census (Section 2, Article I). After each census, State Board of Education (SBOE) districts must also be redrawn to bring them into compliance with the one-person, one-vote requirement.

Redistricting is the revision or replacement of existing districts, resulting in new districts with different geographical boundaries. The basic purpose of decennial redistricting is to equalize population in state and congressional districts after publication of the United States census indicates an increase or decrease in or shift of population.

Reapportionment is the division of a set number of districts among established units of government. For example, the 435 congressional seats are reapportioned among the 50 states after each decennial census according to a formula established by the congress (the method of equal proportions, Huckabee, 1988). The boundaries of the congressional districts are then redrawn by state legislatures in accordance with state and federal law and guidelines developed by the courts.


http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/aboutredistricting.htm
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Why is this considered an issue when its a requirement?...:confused:

The Texas Constitution requires the legislature to redistrict house and senate seats during its first regular session following publication of each United States decennial census (Section 28, Article III). The federal constitution calls for reapportionment of congressional seats according to population from a decennial census (Section 2, Article I). After each census, State Board of Education (SBOE) districts must also be redrawn to bring them into compliance with the one-person, one-vote requirement.

Redistricting is the revision or replacement of existing districts, resulting in new districts with different geographical boundaries. The basic purpose of decennial redistricting is to equalize population in state and congressional districts after publication of the United States census indicates an increase or decrease in or shift of population.

Reapportionment is the division of a set number of districts among established units of government. For example, the 435 congressional seats are reapportioned among the 50 states after each decennial census according to a formula established by the congress (the method of equal proportions, Huckabee, 1988). The boundaries of the congressional districts are then redrawn by state legislatures in accordance with state and federal law and guidelines developed by the courts.


http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/aboutredistricting.htm
If I recall correctly, there had been a redistricting either 2 or 3 years prior. It's normally done every 10 years.

I just checked. Redistricting had occurred in 2001 and then DeLay did it in 2003. Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
If I recall correctly, there had been a redistricting either 2 or 3 years prior. It's normally done every 10 years.

I just checked. Redistricting had occurred in 2001 and then DeLay did it in 2003. Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark.
But is it out of the realm of legitamacy?...Was this also happening BEFORE DeLay?

Remember...things smell rotten until you find out its the modus operandi of all previous state legislatures, too...Did you ever check to see if that was the case?

There are many instances where somebody thinks a "party" does something illegitimate, when in actuality, what they've done has been the status quo over many administrations...example...

Remember the howling over John Bolton?...many from the left(don't really know about this website...I'm going by personal sources) believed that GWB appointing him while the Senate was in recess to get around a nomination hearing was low, deceitful, and an assault on the Constitution...

What they FAILED to realize was that every President has done it and is a regular happenstance...they were just uninformed...

Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments during his two terms in office; George H. W. Bush made 77 during his single term.

President Bill Clinton made a recess appointment of Bill Lan Lee as Assistant Attorney General for civil rights, when it became clear that Lee's strong support of affirmative action would lead to Senate opposition. Similarly, when the Senate did not vote on his nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, Clinton made a recess appointment. Many people felt that the Senate's inaction was because Hormel was an openly gay person, and when he was appointed became the first such person to serve as a U.S. ambassador. Clinton made 140 recess appointments over two terms.

President George W. Bush appointed several judges to U.S. courts of appeals using recess appointments after their nominations were subjected to a Senate filibuster by opposition Democrats. One, Judge Charles Pickering of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, withdrew his name from consideration for renomination when his recess appointment expired. As of August 1, 2005, Bush has made 106 recess appointments.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

So what was MADE OUT to be sneaky was really just par for the course...

So before you claim that what was done in Texas is disgusting, you should be checking out to see if this is really something that has always been done by the other side and when they get a taste of their own medicine, they bitch and moan publicly...Which is something both sides have been doing for decades...

EDIT - I just read that the Texas State Legislature went Republican in 2002 for the first time in 130 years...hmmmm...wonder how the Democrats cornered that market for that long...I wonder if redistricting had anything to do with it...:cool:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I am also looking up stuff on this...

Here's some very recent info on it...

Senior Justice Officials Approved Texas Redistricting Plan
by Ari Shapiro

All Things Considered, December 2, 2005 · Justice Department lawyers concluded that Texas' landmark redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act. But senior officials at the Justice Department overruled them and approved the plan, which was spearheaded by former House Leader Tom DeLay.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5036600&ft=1&f=1014

There is a four minute audio report from NPR on this page...

Pay special attention to what is said at 3:15...
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
I am also looking up stuff on this...

Here's some very recent info on it...

Senior Justice Officials Approved Texas Redistricting Plan
by Ari Shapiro

All Things Considered, December 2, 2005 · Justice Department lawyers concluded that Texas' landmark redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act. But senior officials at the Justice Department overruled them and approved the plan, which was spearheaded by former House Leader Tom DeLay.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5036600&ft=1&f=1014

There is a four minute audio report from NPR on this page...

Pay special attention to what is said at 3:15...
I will listen to this when I am alone either before I leave work or when I get home.

I agree about the recess appointments. I honestly do not have a problem with them. I think the reason that the dems got so upset was because they had been in control of the senate for so long, they didn't know what it was like to have someone they didn't support appointed during recess. In other words, they threw trantrums.

Apparently, the legislature failed to redistrict in 2001, so the courts did it (as that's what supposed to happen when the legislature fails to redistrict). So when it (the legislature) went republican, that's when DeLay and gang sought to redistrict again. I felt bothered back when it happened, and it still bugs me now.

Yeah, I believe that the senior DOJ people approved it, but the group of attorneys who review it for violations of the Voting Rights Act had unanimously voted against the plan. That says something to me.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well, according to a recent poll among registered voters in DeLay's Texas district, he's not going to have to worry much about getting his job back as Majority Leader.

"...when registered voters in the new poll were asked whether they were likely to choose DeLay or an unnamed Democrat in the 2006 midterm election, 49 percent said they would pick the Democrat, while just 36 percent said they would likely support DeLay, who has represented the district since 1984. The poll's sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points."
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
Well, according to a recent poll among registered voters in DeLay's Texas district, he's not going to have to worry much about getting his job back as Majority Leader.

"...when registered voters in the new poll were asked whether they were likely to choose DeLay or an unnamed Democrat in the 2006 midterm election, 49 percent said they would pick the Democrat, while just 36 percent said they would likely support DeLay, who has represented the district since 1984. The poll's sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points."
So let me get this straight...

You start a thread dealing with the legitimacy of redistricting...

and then, for no reason in particular(other than a partisan shot) and with no comments relating to this, you decide to change the subject to his next possible election...

I guess if he ever wins that election you'll just change it to something else that suits your fancy?....Don't like his suits?...His car is a two-door instead of four?...:roll:
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
JustMyPOV said:
Well, according to a recent poll among registered voters in DeLay's Texas district, he's not going to have to worry much about getting his job back as Majority Leader.

"...when registered voters in the new poll were asked whether they were likely to choose DeLay or an unnamed Democrat in the 2006 midterm election, 49 percent said they would pick the Democrat, while just 36 percent said they would likely support DeLay, who has represented the district since 1984. The poll's sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points."
I forgot to add the link to the story I was posting from, and I didn't get to edit within 25 minutes due to technical problems.

CNN
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
So let me get this straight...

You start a thread dealing with the legitimacy of redistricting...

and then, for no reason in particular(other than a partisan shot) and with no comments relating to this, you decide to change the subject to his next possible election...

I guess if he ever wins that election you'll just change it to something else that suits your fancy?....Don't like his suits?...His car is a two-door instead of four?...:roll:
I started a thread to discuss DeLay being in more trouble than we thought. This story came up today and I thought I'd add it to entice further witty retorts from my favorite Republicans. :2razz:

I also think that it's rather funny that you jump on my making a slight turn in this thread, when nearly all other threads regarding Bush on this forum are regularly hijacked by the Republicans here to talk about Clinton(s), and nothing is ever said about it. At least I'm talking about the same guy.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
I started a thread to discuss DeLay being in more trouble than we thought. This story came up today and I thought I'd add it to entice further witty retorts from my favorite Republicans. :2razz:

I also think that it's rather funny that you jump on my making a slight turn in this thread, when nearly all other threads regarding Bush on this forum are regularly hijacked by the Republicans here to talk about Clinton(s), and nothing is ever said about it. At least I'm talking about the same guy.
Far from relevant...

If you were to compare Delay's current situation with a past congress person or administation staff...say "Sandy Berger" or "Robert Packwood", there would be legitimacy due to the same topic...

But saying it's OK to change the topic but not the guy is still changing the topic!

Saying "Other people do it so I can, too." is not a very good defense...Go kill your wife and her friend; then tell the judge it's A-OK because OJ did it and HE was found "not guilty" so you should be, too...

Get back to me on that...:roll:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
JustMyPOV said:
I started a thread to discuss DeLay being in more trouble than we thought. This story came up today and I thought I'd add it to entice further witty retorts from my favorite Republicans. :2razz:

I also think that it's rather funny that you jump on my making a slight turn in this thread, when nearly all other threads regarding Bush on this forum are regularly hijacked by the Republicans here to talk about Clinton(s), and nothing is ever said about it. At least I'm talking about the same guy.
POV, I am glad you shared that information with us. I have a friend who worked for Nick Lampson, whose district was redistricted by DeLay and then DeLay took it from him. Nick is running for election in that district, so I am assuming that's who the "democrat" is. I would LOVE to see DeLay lose. It would make the questionable redistricting worth it for me.

cnredd, what's wrong with bringing up a side issue on the same person?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Far from relevant...

If you were to compare Delay's current situation with a past congress person or administation staff...say "Sandy Berger" or "Robert Packwood", there would be legitimacy due to the same topic...

But saying it's OK to change the topic but not the guy is still changing the topic!

Saying "Other people do it so I can, too." is not a very good defense...Go kill your wife and her friend; then tell the judge it's A-OK because OJ did it and HE was found "not guilty" so you should be, too...

Get back to me on that...:roll:
cnredd, what is up? Why are you so upset about POV addressing DeLay's 2006 election? I bring up side issues all the time in threads. Isn't this a normal aspect of conversation? There is an article in today's Washington Post talking about how the conspiracy charges were dismissed but the money laundering charges were upheld. The author then points out what POV pointed out regarding how many people would vote for DeLay if the election were held today. Raising side issues is normal.

Anyway, so I listened to the NPR discussion on the redistricting. Some guy who has worked there for 3 years makes an assessment as to the voting rights division and you hang your hat on that? Someone who had been there for more than 30 years felt otherwise. Thus, that career attorney had been with the Justice Dept. through democratic and republican presidencies. To whom do I give more credibility? The republicans are reversing what the democrats have done? I'm not buying it. The voting rights group voted unanimously (I believe that there are 7 people who make up that group--5 attorneys and 2 analysts--all career employees) that the redistricting was a violation, but the political appointees disagreed. It still sounds fishy to me.

Look at what happened with the tobacco case. The career justice attorney quit because her superiors (political appointees) were not supporting her. They tried to decrease the damages by approximately $100 billion. What does that tell you? It tells me that the political appointees at the Justice Dept. have an agenda. The tobacco companies knew that nicotine was addicting and yet they hid that information from its consumers. I would like to see a ban on all smoking because nothing good comes from smoking. Your health worsens, your teeth are yellow/blackish, you smell bad, you pollute the US with your cigarrette butts, you pollute the air we breathe, you increase my health care costs, and the list goes on......

Are you going to reprimand me for bringing up a side issue? ;)
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
cnredd, what is up? Why are you so upset about POV addressing DeLay's 2006 election? I bring up side issues all the time in threads. Isn't this a normal aspect of conversation? There is an article in today's Washington Post talking about how the conspiracy charges were dismissed but the money laundering charges were upheld. The author then points out what POV pointed out regarding how many people would vote for DeLay if the election were held today. Raising side issues is normal.

Anyway, so I listened to the NPR discussion on the redistricting. Some guy who has worked there for 3 years makes an assessment as to the voting rights division and you hang your hat on that? Someone who had been there for more than 30 years felt otherwise. Thus, that career attorney had been with the Justice Dept. through democratic and republican presidencies. To whom do I give more credibility? The republicans are reversing what the democrats have done? I'm not buying it. The voting rights group voted unanimously (I believe that there are 7 people who make up that group--5 attorneys and 2 analysts--all career employees) that the redistricting was a violation, but the political appointees disagreed. It still sounds fishy to me.

Look at what happened with the tobacco case. The career justice attorney quit because her superiors (political appointees) were not supporting her. They tried to decrease the damages by approximately $100 billion. What does that tell you? It tells me that the political appointees at the Justice Dept. have an agenda. The tobacco companies knew that nicotine was addicting and yet they hid that information from its consumers. I would like to see a ban on all smoking because nothing good comes from smoking. Your health worsens, your teeth are yellow/blackish, you smell bad, you pollute the US with your cigarrette butts, you pollute the air we breathe, you increase my health care costs, and the list goes on......

Are you going to reprimand me for bringing up a side issue? ;)
Not at all!...Although I might want to deal out punishment for future things you may need to be "reprimanded" for...;)

Things go "awry" in threads all of the time, and for multiple reasons...The thing that makes this look like a photographic negative is the fact that most originators of threads guard their topic as if it's their own and get highly annoyed when OTHERS make the discussion go astray...

Here, my issue is that it is the poster of the original thread that realized his initial accusation may be dying, so he purposefully averts it and attacks from a different angle...example...

Post #1 - Here is an article...It says Clinton stole from a bank...

Post #2 - Wrong...Here is proof it never happened and was a hoax...

Post #3(same member as Post #1) - Oh yeah?...Well he still lied when he got a hummer!

See the absurdity?...Pushing forth an accusation, then on a whim, giving up on that original accusation and trying to start "fresh" just turns the thread into a bashfest for whomever the original post was against...Don't believe me?...Look at his response...

This story came up today and I thought I'd add it to entice further witty retorts from my favorite Republicans.

My accusation has been proven through his own response...:shrug:

The second accusation had NO relevence, not only to the original post, but no relevance to ANYTHING having to do with this thread!...Why bother?...

Pertaining to the original post...I haven't "hung my hat" on anything...I've only pointed things out that may or may not be valid...If you remember, all I've done(so far) was ask questions...It's called "objectivity"...I guess I should be slammed for it because, apparently, it's not allowed on this forum...

Look at my previous comments...

Remember...things smell rotten until you find out its the modus operandi of all previous state legislatures, too...Did you ever check to see if that was the case?

So before you claim that what was done in Texas is disgusting, you should be checking out to see if this is really something that has always been done by the other side and when they get a taste of their own medicine, they bitch and moan publicly...Which is something both sides have been doing for decades...

See me defending anyone here?...In fact, I find it "fishy", too...I just don't jump up and cry "guilty!" just because something sounds "fishy"...That's why I even continued to look stuff up after I wrote what I did above...

I'm looking for HOW the redistricting went for the last few decade or two to see if the Republicans were whining about the same thing the Democrats are whining about now...No luck so far...I also would accept the credibility of the "new blood" over a person who's been committed to the same establishment for 30 years...How dare somebody criticize his cushy position when everyone around him may have let him have "free reign" unimpeded based purely on political affiliation for so long...

Imagine being a pitching coach for the same team for 20 years, but when a new manager is brought in, his first priority is to fire him and bring in a new pitching coach with a different way of thinking...If I were him, I'd be pi$$ed, too...

Well lookie!...We're back on topic!...:2wave:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Not at all!...Although I might want to deal out punishment for future things you may need to be "reprimanded" for...;)

Things go "awry" in threads all of the time, and for multiple reasons...The thing that makes this look like a photographic negative is the fact that most originators of threads guard their topic as if it's their own and get highly annoyed when OTHERS make the discussion go astray...

Here, my issue is that it is the poster of the original thread that realized his initial accusation may be dying, so he purposefully averts it and attacks from a different angle...example...

Post #1 - Here is an article...It says Clinton stole from a bank...

Post #2 - Wrong...Here is proof it never happened and was a hoax...

Post #3(same member as Post #1) - Oh yeah?...Well he still lied when he got a hummer!

See the absurdity?...Pushing forth an accusation, then on a whim, giving up on that original accusation and trying to start "fresh" just turns the thread into a bashfest for whomever the original post was against...Don't believe me?...Look at his response...

This story came up today and I thought I'd add it to entice further witty retorts from my favorite Republicans.

My accusation has been proven through his own response...:shrug:

The second accusation had NO relevence, not only to the original post, but no relevance to ANYTHING having to do with this thread!...Why bother?...

Pertaining to the original post...I haven't "hung my hat" on anything...I've only pointed things out that may or may not be valid...If you remember, all I've done(so far) was ask questions...It's called "objectivity"...I guess I should be slammed for it because, apparently, it's not allowed on this forum...

Look at my previous comments...

Remember...things smell rotten until you find out its the modus operandi of all previous state legislatures, too...Did you ever check to see if that was the case?

So before you claim that what was done in Texas is disgusting, you should be checking out to see if this is really something that has always been done by the other side and when they get a taste of their own medicine, they bitch and moan publicly...Which is something both sides have been doing for decades...

See me defending anyone here?...In fact, I find it "fishy", too...I just don't jump up and cry "guilty!" just because something sounds "fishy"...That's why I even continued to look stuff up after I wrote what I did above...

I'm looking for HOW the redistricting went for the last few decade or two to see if the Republicans were whining about the same thing the Democrats are whining about now...No luck so far...I also would accept the credibility of the "new blood" over a person who's been committed to the same establishment for 30 years...How dare somebody criticize his cushy position when everyone around him may have let him have "free reign" unimpeded based purely on political affiliation for so long...

Imagine being a pitching coach for the same team for 20 years, but when a new manager is brought in, his first priority is to fire him and bring in a new pitching coach with a different way of thinking...If I were him, I'd be pi$$ed, too...

Well lookie!...We're back on topic!...:2wave:
Wow. Great response. You are right. You clearly are open minded as to what may have transpired. If you find anything about the redistrticting that dems did, please let me know. There are arguments that can be made by both sides regarding the Justice Dept. For me, I have noticed a pattern where the political appointees seem to be going in the opposite direction of the career employees. My husband's work is a perfect example. He represents the EPA in federal court. He works for Justice. They have multiple cases that they are working on which EPA referred to them while Clinton was in office. Suddenly, Bush comes in and begins dismantling the Clean Air Act. While the violations that occurred while Clinton was in office are still deemed violations, the defendants are coming in and saying, "Well, if our clients committed the same acts now, they wouldn't be deemed violations of the Clean Air Act." The dismantling of the CAA is not retroactive. Regardless, the effect it is having on their cases is tremendous, and they clearly no longer have the support of the political appointees. It's why Eric Schafer quit EPA during Bush's first term. He was fed up with his cases being undermined.

Anyway, back to DeLay. Personally, anything involving DeLay is circumspect for me--I just can't help it.

Thanks for your well-reasoned (for a change ;)) response to me.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
Well, according to a recent poll among registered voters in DeLay's Texas district, he's not going to have to worry much about getting his job back as Majority Leader.

"...when registered voters in the new poll were asked whether they were likely to choose DeLay or an unnamed Democrat in the 2006 midterm election, 49 percent said they would pick the Democrat, while just 36 percent said they would likely support DeLay, who has represented the district since 1984. The poll's sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points."
Look, one of the three charges has already been dismissed. When the other two are dropped (or he is found not guilty), the political witchhunt that this is will be fully exposed and he will win the district again next year if he chooses to run.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ironically, the redistricting weakened DeLays strong Fort Bend county conservative support. By taking in southern and eastern Harris county, along with part of Galveston county, it brought in a lot of blue-collar type voters, who tend to vote democratic, to his district. Although he won the last election, it wasn't by the comfortable margin he had enjoyed in the past. He actually had to do a little campaigning and is raising money to do even more this time around.

Will he be successful again? I don't know, a lot of things can change between now and then.
 
Top Bottom