| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2005 10:44:43 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
25 Oct 2005 04:09:38 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:03:58 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns96F8522A4A2ECfstone69@213.155.197.138> wrote:
"Stuart" <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote in
news:1130041561.787672.142010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the
evidence, and they are the ones that count, not you and
Delay's invisible
laws and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with
justice hitting Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least
one of the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was
influenced by adverse publicity in the media before the grand
jury was even convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists,
hanging their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while
ignoring the big picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't
even a crime.
In which case, it will be thrown out of court, no trial and Delay
Exonerated.
Now, if that doesn't happen, will you conceed that Delay is being
accused of actual crimes?
Yes or No, Fred
No. I will concede if he goes to trial and is convicted.
That would suggest that he was *guilty* of the crime. Failure of the
attempt to dismiss would say that he was accused of *real crime*.
Bugeater Delay gathered money from businesses in
Texas for candidates illegally. He funneled
this money through GOP organizations to launder it.
He wrote some notes to those GOP organizations
instructing them to take money given to them and
funnel them back to Texas. This is illegal.
Bugeater has angrily claimed he "mispoke" himself here.
Sorry, one does not get rid of incriminating evidence
by merely claiming to have mispoken one's self
in incriminating evidence.
The *****'s going down.
Only a gross miscarriage of justice engineered by
a totally corrupt GOP can save him.
And they are going to try it.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
24 Oct 2005 01:06:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the evidence,
and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's invisible laws
and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice hitting
Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least one of
the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced by
adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists, hanging
their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring the big
picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't even a
crime.
Then I'm sure it will tossed out, Fred. Unless, of course, this particular
interpretation is wrong. In any case, there's enough questionable dealings
on DeLay's part that I'd think you'd be damn happy to see what might be a
very nasty lightning rod for the Republicans taken out.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
26 Oct 2005 08:45:02 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndlq8l6.vjr.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the evidence,
and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's invisible
laws and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice
hitting Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least one
of the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced
by adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists, hanging
their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring the big
picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't even
a crime.
Then I'm sure it will tossed out, Fred. Unless, of course, this
particular interpretation is wrong. In any case, there's enough
questionable dealings on DeLay's part that I'd think you'd be damn
happy to see what might be a very nasty lightning rod for the
Republicans taken out.
If he's to be "taken out" I'd hope it would be for something that was
actually a crime.
Oh, and if you're still holding onto some lingering doubt about whether
this is a politically-motivated prosecution, read this (his sources are
impeccable):
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/10/trivia_tidbit_o_193.html
And on a lighter note:
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/thompson11.jpg
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
27 Oct 2005 12:32:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:45:02 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndlq8l6.vjr.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the evidence,
and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's invisible
laws and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice
hitting Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least one
of the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced
by adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists, hanging
their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring the big
picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't even
a crime.
Then I'm sure it will tossed out, Fred. Unless, of course, this
particular interpretation is wrong. In any case, there's enough
questionable dealings on DeLay's part that I'd think you'd be damn
happy to see what might be a very nasty lightning rod for the
Republicans taken out.
If he's to be "taken out" I'd hope it would be for something that was
actually a crime.
Oh, and if you're still holding onto some lingering doubt about whether
this is a politically-motivated prosecution, read this (his sources are
impeccable):
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/10/trivia_tidbit_o_193.html
And on a lighter note:
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/thompson11.jpg
Why don't we wait for the judge, eh Fred?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A.Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 03:09:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the evidence,
and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's invisible laws
and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice hitting
Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least one of
the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced by
adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists, hanging
their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring the big
picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't even a
crime.
Funny how corporate funds illegally ended up in political campaigns
through money laundering.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 05:43:20 PM |
|
|
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:007ll11i208us6vq8hfjdo4ek4sb9rd038@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the evidence,
and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's invisible
laws
and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice hitting
Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least one
of
the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced by
adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists, hanging
their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring the big
picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't even a
crime.
Funny how corporate funds illegally ended up in political campaigns
through money laundering.
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in question.
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging soft
money for hard.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 07:16:27 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in news:Xns96F7BE93D2527fstone69@
213.155.197.138:
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in question.
I can't comment on this, since I don't know anything about this particular
aspect of it.
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging soft
money for hard.
Um. If, for instance, DeLay had taken 10 million bucks from corporate
donors and given it to the RNC and received 10 million bucks from the RNC,
that's okay to use?
How can ANY state regulate campaign donations if this is true?
This is, after all, what "money laundering" IS: converting one sort of
money (illegal gains, for example, or soft money, for another) into another
sort (legal gains, or hard money). It's my understanding that simply
passing money through a couple of different accounts doesn't alter its
origin, but of course, like Fred, I am not a lawyer.
-JAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 08:14:47 PM |
|
|
Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net> wrote in
news:Xns96F7AFB908E81joshblargnet@216.168.3.44:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F7BE93D2527fstone69@ 213.155.197.138:
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in
question.
I can't comment on this, since I don't know anything about this
particular aspect of it.
That was the basis of DeLay's first motion to dismiss. After DeLay's
attorney filed that motion, Earle went shopping for another grand jury
to indict on the charge of "money laundering".
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging
soft money for hard.
Um. If, for instance, DeLay had taken 10 million bucks from corporate
donors and given it to the RNC and received 10 million bucks from the
RNC, that's okay to use?
Assuming that the RNC's money came from hard (individual) donations,
sure, that should be just fine. Look at it this way, if the RNC just up
a gave a state candidate 10 million bucks of hard money, would THAT be
OK?
How can ANY state regulate campaign donations if this is true?
Putting aside the question of whether they *should* regulate campaign
contributions, the simple fact is that national campaign committees are
allowed to give money to state campaigns.
This is, after all, what "money laundering" IS: converting one sort of
money (illegal gains, for example, or soft money, for another) into
another sort (legal gains, or hard money). It's my understanding that
simply passing money through a couple of different accounts doesn't
alter its origin, but of course, like Fred, I am not a lawyer.
There's a subtle, but significant, difference. Money laundering involves
depositing illegally obtained funds into an account (or a business) and
then withdrawing *from the same account*; or moving that money from one
account to another; in order to disguise the origins of the money.
In the DeLay-RNC case, there were two different accounts involved. The
RNC *already had* hard money available. For them to give hard money to a
state race is legal. For the state campaign to give soft money to the
RNC was also legal. Those two particular legal transactions, IMO, IANAL,
do not add up to an illegal transaction.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
23 Oct 2005 12:48:34 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
That was the basis of DeLay's first motion to dismiss. After
DeLay's attorney filed that motion, Earle went shopping for
another grand jury to indict on the charge of "money laundering".
Very quickly there will come a point where Delay will have
to construct a real defense, a legal defense, instead of these
constant personal attacks on the prosecutor.
We're laughing at you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
26 Oct 2005 10:14:09 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net> wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
This is, after all, what "money laundering" IS: converting one sort of
money (illegal gains, for example, or soft money, for another) into
another sort (legal gains, or hard money). It's my understanding that
simply passing money through a couple of different accounts doesn't
alter its origin, but of course, like Fred, I am not a lawyer.
There's a subtle, but significant, difference. Money laundering involves
depositing illegally obtained funds into an account (or a business) and
then withdrawing *from the same account*; or moving that money from one
account to another; in order to disguise the origins of the money.
In the DeLay-RNC case, there were two different accounts involved.
That would be the "or moving that money from one account to another"
option.
The RNC *already had* hard money available. For them to give hard money to a
state race is legal. For the state campaign to give soft money to the
RNC was also legal. Those two particular legal transactions, IMO, IANAL,
do not add up to an illegal transaction.
How about picking up a prostitute by way of a madam?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
25 Oct 2005 09:15:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:14:47 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns96F7D8420ECDDfstone69@213.155.197.138>
wrote:
Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net> wrote in
news:Xns96F7AFB908E81joshblargnet@216.168.3.44:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F7BE93D2527fstone69@ 213.155.197.138:
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in
question.
I can't comment on this, since I don't know anything about this
particular aspect of it.
That was the basis of DeLay's first motion to dismiss. After DeLay's
attorney filed that motion, Earle went shopping for another grand jury
to indict on the charge of "money laundering".
Lovely rhetoric, who did you get the "shopping" from? *Judge* shopping
is inappropriate. A DA, OTOH, is supposed to convene a grand jury to
investigate charges. And when the first jury's term had expired it is
entirely reasonable to empanel a new one. Try the Hutchison defense:
it is not a "real" crime. (Real, I assume, means committed by
Democrats.)
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging
soft money for hard.
Um. If, for instance, DeLay had taken 10 million bucks from corporate
donors and given it to the RNC and received 10 million bucks from the
RNC, that's okay to use?
Assuming that the RNC's money came from hard (individual) donations,
sure, that should be just fine. Look at it this way, if the RNC just up
a gave a state candidate 10 million bucks of hard money, would THAT be
OK?
How can ANY state regulate campaign donations if this is true?
Putting aside the question of whether they *should* regulate campaign
contributions, the simple fact is that national campaign committees are
allowed to give money to state campaigns.
This is, after all, what "money laundering" IS: converting one sort of
money (illegal gains, for example, or soft money, for another) into
another sort (legal gains, or hard money). It's my understanding that
simply passing money through a couple of different accounts doesn't
alter its origin, but of course, like Fred, I am not a lawyer.
There's a subtle, but significant, difference. Money laundering involves
depositing illegally obtained funds into an account (or a business) and
then withdrawing *from the same account*; or moving that money from one
account to another; in order to disguise the origins of the money.
In the DeLay-RNC case, there were two different accounts involved. The
RNC *already had* hard money available. For them to give hard money to a
state race is legal. For the state campaign to give soft money to the
RNC was also legal. Those two particular legal transactions, IMO, IANAL,
do not add up to an illegal transaction.
No, YANAL.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 08:30:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:16:27 -0000, Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net>
wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in news:Xns96F7BE93D2527fstone69@
213.155.197.138:
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in question.
I can't comment on this, since I don't know anything about this particular
aspect of it.
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging soft
money for hard.
Um. If, for instance, DeLay had taken 10 million bucks from corporate
donors and given it to the RNC and received 10 million bucks from the RNC,
that's okay to use?
How can ANY state regulate campaign donations if this is true?
This is, after all, what "money laundering" IS: converting one sort of
money (illegal gains, for example, or soft money, for another) into another
sort (legal gains, or hard money). It's my understanding that simply
passing money through a couple of different accounts doesn't alter its
origin, but of course, like Fred, I am not a lawyer.
You sound more competent than Delay's lawyer
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
23 Oct 2005 03:45:54 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:007ll11i208us6vq8hfjdo4ek4sb9rd038@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the
evidence, and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's
invisible
laws
and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice
hitting Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least
one
of
the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced
by adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists,
hanging their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring
the big picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't
even a crime.
Funny how corporate funds illegally ended up in political campaigns
through money laundering.
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in
question.
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging
soft money for hard.
Its laundering and it is illegal.
If it was Clintoning doing it we know you be
telling us how illegal that money laundering is.
We have now had two grand juries indict his sorry *****.
He's going to do time.
And its about time this corrupt ***** got
popped hard.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
23 Oct 2005 07:26:28 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in news:11lmidhr0bp2679
@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:007ll11i208us6vq8hfjdo4ek4sb9rd038@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the
evidence, and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's
invisible
laws
and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice
hitting Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least
one
of
the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced
by adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists,
hanging their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring
the big picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't
even a crime.
Funny how corporate funds illegally ended up in political campaigns
through money laundering.
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in
question.
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging
soft money for hard.
Its laundering and it is illegal.
If it was Clintoning doing it we know you be
telling us how illegal that money laundering is.
Uhh, no, I wouldn't.
We have now had two grand juries indict his sorry *****.
"If at first you don't succeed, try try again?"
He's going to do time.
And its about time this corrupt ***** got
popped hard.
Sorry, barwell, but beating Democrats isn't illegal.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
23 Oct 2005 01:22:44 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:007ll11i208us6vq8hfjdo4ek4sb9rd038@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the evidence,
and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's invisible
laws
and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice hitting
Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least one
of
the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced by
adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists, hanging
their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring the big
picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't even a
crime.
Funny how corporate funds illegally ended up in political campaigns
through money laundering.
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in question.
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging soft
money for hard.
Still, no one can point to any actual positive benefit to the country
from all the grief he's caused. Even if he's eventually exonerrated,
at least someone will have screwed with him rather than everyone just
bowing down and letting him get away with his crap. Maybe something
will pop in his twisted little microsoul.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
23 Oct 2005 07:12:20 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1130048564.750446.95980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:007ll11i208us6vq8hfjdo4ek4sb9rd038@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hhejl1ljhg71m90frehf4sbh0v4m6u1o8f@4ax.com:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1129931071.845126.297500 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the
evidence, and they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's
invisible
laws
and facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice
hitting Delay just like it hits everyone else.
Ronnie Earle has brought baseless indictments before. At least
one
of
the grand jury members is quoted as saying that he was influenced
by adverse publicity in the media before the grand jury was even
convened.
Which shows how conservatives tend to be like creationists,
hanging their beliefs on the slimmest of evidence while ignoring
the big picture.
The "big picture" being that the act DeLay is accused of wasn't
even a crime.
Funny how corporate funds illegally ended up in political campaigns
through money laundering.
That law didn't go into effect until 2003, *after* the act in
question.
Not only that, it wasn't money laundering. It was simply exchanging
soft money for hard.
Still, no one can point to any actual positive benefit to the country
from all the grief he's caused. Even if he's eventually exonerrated,
at least someone will have screwed with him rather than everyone just
bowing down and letting him get away with his crap. Maybe something
will pop in his twisted little microsoul.
Now there's a nice example of the liberal approach to the justice
system. Who cares about the actual law? Just ***** with people you don't
like.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
23 Oct 2005 10:22:36 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote in
Still, no one can point to any actual positive benefit to the country
from all the grief he's caused. Even if he's eventually exonerrated,
at least someone will have screwed with him rather than everyone just
bowing down and letting him get away with his crap. Maybe something
will pop in his twisted little microsoul.
Now there's a nice example of the liberal approach to the justice
system.
What do you figure liberalism has to do with it? I'm a moderate. When
liberals had too much power back in the seventies and eighties I voted
Republican. But the main value of conservatism is in keeping Liberals
from going overboard. When conservatives are actually in charge, they
believe in undoing lots of things that can only be called progress.
Capitalism is useful at times, but the way conservatives fawn upon and
worship it is of no benefit whatsoever to the country as a whole, for
instance.
Who cares about the actual law? Just ***** with people you don't
like.
I said nothing about f*cking with people I don't like, that's just a
bogus strawman on your part. But people who are power-crazy, cynical
manipulators with no loyalty to the country deserve to be screwed with
any way that's legal, and it is legal to bring him up on these charges.
And if he gets off on a technicality, then at least somebody stood up
to him. He's a bully, and it's _always_ just to screw with bullies.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 12:40:58 AM |
|
|
TV's Kate wrote:
The grand jury was quite happy with the charges and the evidence, and
they are the ones that count, not you and Delay's invisible laws and
facts. I guess you'll just have to deal with justice hitting Delay
just like it hits everyone else.
It will even be worth the awful "Delayed Justice" headlines that will be
placed in every newspaper across the country, by hack journalists who think
they're being clever and they were the first to think of it.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "glass" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
21 Oct 2005 03:32:34 PM |
|
|
In article <dGb6f.1147$Lv.999@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>, CreateThis
CreateThis@yippee.com says...
Fred Stone wrote:
... poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
I'd be happy with a shot of him in stripes.
CT
Hey, me too.
;)
--
[ winamp is playing ] :: Ministry - Stigmata
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
21 Oct 2005 03:26:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:05:00 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129909483.912365.203910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
Yeah, poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
Instead, you get a picture of a smug sonofabitch. I'd say that's way
better.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
21 Oct 2005 05:59:00 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 20:26:31 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:05:00 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129909483.912365.203910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
Yeah, poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
Instead, you get a picture of a smug sonofabitch. I'd say that's way
better.
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest degree.
He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed remorselessness is
sure to bite him in the *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
21 Oct 2005 06:56:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:59:00 -0400,
Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 20:26:31 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:05:00 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129909483.912365.203910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
Yeah, poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
Instead, you get a picture of a smug sonofabitch. I'd say that's way
better.
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest degree.
He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed remorselessness is
sure to bite him in the *****.
I don't think it would proper or becoming for him to show up like Glenn
Campbell or Nick Nolte, looking like someone stepped on their head four or
five times, but using a mug shot photo as a PR tool gives you a window into
the guy's head. I'm still note sure exactly why Fred seems so much in his
camp, considering the number of Republicans who seem to be going "Tom
who???" now. I'll be honest, I think the Republicans in Congress thought
that DeLay was going to be an anchor around them and aren't exactly shedding
tears at his troubles.
But as to his guilt or innocence, that's up to the court to decide. I
frankly could care less either way. I think DeLay's day was done
regardless.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
21 Oct 2005 07:22:02 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 23:56:08 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:59:00 -0400,
Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 20:26:31 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:05:00 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129909483.912365.203910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
Yeah, poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
Instead, you get a picture of a smug sonofabitch. I'd say that's way
better.
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest degree.
He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed remorselessness is
sure to bite him in the *****.
I don't think it would proper or becoming for him to show up like Glenn
Campbell or Nick Nolte, looking like someone stepped on their head four or
five times, but using a mug shot photo as a PR tool gives you a window into
the guy's head. I'm still note sure exactly why Fred seems so much in his
camp, considering the number of Republicans who seem to be going "Tom
who???" now. I'll be honest, I think the Republicans in Congress thought
that DeLay was going to be an anchor around them and aren't exactly shedding
tears at his troubles.
But as to his guilt or innocence, that's up to the court to decide. I
frankly could care less either way. I think DeLay's day was done
regardless.
I wonder how much he had to pay someone so he didn't get the numbers
under his chin, like everyone else?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 12:38:25 AM |
|
|
TV's Uncle Buck wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 20:26:31 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:05:00 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129909483.912365.203910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
Yeah, poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
Instead, you get a picture of a smug sonofabitch. I'd say that's way
better.
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest
degree. He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed
remorselessness is sure to bite him in the *****.
That won't be the only thing that happens in his *****.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
22 Oct 2005 01:55:34 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
TV's Uncle Buck wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 20:26:31 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:05:00 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129909483.912365.203910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
Yeah, poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
Instead, you get a picture of a smug sonofabitch. I'd say that's way
better.
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest
degree. He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed
remorselessness is sure to bite him in the *****.
That won't be the only thing that happens in his *****.
If I were Delay, I'd be working on a prison reform bill.
Stuart
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
24 Oct 2005 12:27:53 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest degree.
He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed remorselessness is
sure to bite him in the *****.
"He may not have done it, but he ought to feel bad about
doing it anyway." Riiiiight.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
24 Oct 2005 05:47:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest degree.
He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed remorselessness is
sure to bite him in the *****.
"He may not have done it, but he ought to feel bad about
doing it anyway." Riiiiight.
I think you mean:
"He may not have done it, but /IF HE DID/ he ought to feel bad about
doing it anyway." Riiiiight.
because, of course, you wouldn't want to lie about what Uncle
Buck wrote.
Riiiight.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
25 Oct 2005 08:11:43 AM |
|
|
James Burns wrote:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest degree.
He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed remorselessness is
sure to bite him in the *****.
"He may not have done it, but he ought to feel bad about
doing it anyway." Riiiiight.
I think you mean:
"He may not have done it, but /IF HE DID/ he ought to feel bad about
doing it anyway." Riiiiight.
because, of course, you wouldn't want to lie about what Uncle
Buck wrote.
Riiiight.
Fair enough. My mistake. Buck was damning DeLay for being
"smug", but you are correct that Buck did show a willingness
to actually allow the justice system to do it's work before
calling for DeLay to pay a price for offending Buck in that
fashion.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncleo Bucko" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
24 Oct 2005 09:06:59 PM |
|
|
Posting just to a.a, as the one I'd cross-posted to talk.origins doesn't seem to
be popping up for some reason. :-?
On 24 Oct 2005 10:27:53 -0700, wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
I'd have to agree to an extent. Smug self-righteousness at its highest degree.
He may or may not be convicted, but if he is, his unabashed remorselessness is
sure to bite him in the *****.
"He may not have done it, but he ought to feel bad about
doing it anyway." Riiiiight.
You did note, didn't you, that I said, "_if_ he is [convicted]"? Or are you
just being a pompous ***** for no good reason? :-?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay |
21 Oct 2005 01:00:03 PM |
|
|
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129909483.912365.203910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html
Yeah, poor babies, you didn't get the "perp walk" and you don't get a
disheveled and disgruntled mug shot for your publicity campaign.
I don't give a rat's ***** about a perp walk or a sad-faced mug shot, I just
want the ***** out of my government.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
