I have no interest in what anybody likes... I'm here to debate facts. You might try it.And the courts will with progressives not liking the outcome. [...]
I have no interest in what anybody likes... I'm here to debate facts. You might try it.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. The chart shows GHWB and bush* with the 2nd and 3rd longest recoveries. The two shortest recoveries were under Nixon and Reagan.
Nope, what you are trying to do is convict Perry on an ethics violation for doing what he had the authority to do. It is claimed that this is an ethics violation, If a Governor can veto legislation what does ethics have to do with it. It doesn't matter what his reasons were and you ought to know that. That is what the courts are going to decide as well. what then for you?
I think the thing here is, he would have been fine if he didn't say anything about her resigning and he vetoed it.
It's like you can decide not to hire someone because they are black. But if you tell them you are not hiring them because they are black you are in trouble.
Gov. Perry stating his reason is why this falls into a grey enough area that a Grand Jury indicted him.
Can you quote or explain the provisions of the Texas constitution or Texas law that allows the governor to punish individual people outside of the legal system?I don't equate the two. Perry committed no crime. The DA did. Perry didn't tarnish his office. The DA did. Perry was upfront and honest with the people of Texas - he clearly, and plainly told them that if this DA refused to resign, he would do everything in his power to see that her office was defunded. [...]
You keep acting as if I have something personal to gain from a conviction here. I don't. I don't live in Texas. So, I wouldn't be impacted one way or the other no matter the outcome in what is now a legal issue. I'm not looking for a victory in this neither for Gov. Perry not the DA. I'm merely debating the issue, nothing more.
As to the question of ethics, of course you can't see the problem because you refuse to see it as an abuse of power, a high-ranking government official overstepping his bounds, using his position as Governor of a state to force a duly elected official to leave her position. Again, Lehmberg wasn't appointed by him. So, she doesn't answer directly to him. She answers to the County Commissioner.
Can you quote or explain the provisions of the Texas constitution or Texas law that allows the governor to punish individual people outside of the legal system?
I don't equate the two. Perry committed no crime. The DA did.
It'd be like Obama vetoing any bill until the Republicans in the house resign.
So what is it that you know that leads you to believe that Perry has engaged in corrupt activities?
Or is this just a baseless accusation?
Exactly. At least he would have plausible deniability. I'm not really surprised that Perry is too dumb to know that, but rather shocked that his aides let him shoot his mouth off like that. As it stands he has no credible defense whatsoever.
I am sorry but there is nothing to debate, ethics isn't even an issue it is about the governor's authority and he has a right to veto any legislation he wants for whatever reason he wants. Where is the abuse of power? The money taken from the taxpayers is controlled by the Governor, sounds to me like the DA has an ethics problem not Perry. Why would any taxpayer want someone in office who abused the public trust to have any of their money? She didn't have to resign just like Perry didn't have to authorize the spending for whatever reason.
They were different types of recessions, with different causes. If you don't understand the extent of the debt bubble that was the cause of the GLOBAL recession that began in 2007, you really shouldn't be talking about appropriate responses. Besides, the "response" to the 2001 recession was to cut taxes, blow up the deficit, start a war, greatly expand government spending, and then start blowing up the debt bubble that collapsed in 2007. You think that was a sustainable economic plan?
Besides, note the employment drop. Took 24 months, 18 months of them pre-Obama, to hit bottom. Different kind of recession by orders of magnitude.
Yes, she did, but was it conducted in the performance of her duties?
You see, an elected official can be charged with misconduct and such could be applied her performance on and off duty. But that's not the charge levied against her. Her's is public intoxication. As such, was she drinking on or off the clock?
It may sound like semantics, but it really isn't. Regardless, I agree that she should have resigned. However, I disagree that she should be forced to do so by the TX Governor.
Then it is the taxpayers who elected her who should make that decision with the power of their vote OR their voices by either contacting the DA's office directly and voicing their displeasure, protesting or contacting the County Commissioner.
Just use Google and the stories abound.
So, in other words, he should act like a two-faced liberal and not be honest with the voting public about what he's doing - is that it?
The underlined portion of your statement is what some are starting to question. Who would he have recommended to replace her? To that, let me ask the following questions:
1. Prior to the public intoxication conviction, had Gov. Perry ever publically complained about DA Lehmberg's job performance or that of the Public Integrity Unit she managed?
2. Assuming such charges of poor performance and unsatisfactory results were levied by Gov. Perry against DA Lehmberg, were they every substantiated?
What I'm getting at was there every a pattern of poor performance from DA Lehmberg and the PIU prior to the public intox conviction and did the Governor make such public?
Yes, I looked. The stories are all about the present, partially or even largely unknown facts of the indictment.
So that'd be parroting the biased lame stream media then.
And the courts will with progressives not liking the outcome. Governors have the authority to veto legislation for any reason they want and that is what they are going to rule in this case. Lehmberg didn't have to resign at all, part of her budget wasn't funded. She could have gone to the legislature and court of public opinion to get the veto overturned but the reality is she wanted to make this political as do most liberals
I keep hearing she was forced to resign. When exactly did that happen? You think cutting part of her budget which wasn't her salary forced her to resign. You see you easily buy what you are being told.
Can you quote or explain the provisions of the Texas constitution or Texas law that allows the governor to punish individual people outside of the legal system?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?