OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay

Religions > Atheism > OT: Best possible view of Tom DeLay

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 5

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: "David Fritzinger"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 04:52:07 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130043788.437549.206560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130030420.017286.42490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Fyy6f.409$Lv.360@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F6AF4D99EF0fstone69@213.155.197.138...

Enkidu the Atheist <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F68BF0E509A255229@130.133.1.4:

Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:e396f.17920$6e1.17766@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

towelie wrote:

TV's

wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

He looks like he's excited about the prospect of getting
assraped in prison.

He isn't going to prison because the charge is bogus,
leveled by a polital hack prosecuter. He had more than
enough hard money contributions to pay for his hard money
expenses. That is the bottom line. Klaus

The "polital hack prosecuter" who prosecuted over twice as
many democrats for corruption as republicans?

And all of them political opponents of Ronnie Earle or his
cronies.

See, here's where we're expecting a list of people Earle has
indicted and a short explanation of why each is a political
opponent. Or are you just quoting someone else's opinion
without attribution? Or are you just making it up?

[begin cite]

Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office for attacks on his
political and personal enemies.

·"The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor investigating Mr. DeLay has
a history of using his office for partisan ends."(Congressional
prerogative, The Washington Times, November 19, 2004)

·Earle has demonstrated a past zeal for indicting conservative
figures and even liberals with whom he has personal or
professional disagreements. (Target: DeLay, National Review, April
11, 2005)

Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have frequently failed - are
designed for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is the same
partisan prosecutor who politically indicted and failed to
convict:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he was Comptroller - later
he was Lt. Governor)
Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox

Ronnie Earle's three year political vendetta against Rep. DeLay
has been marked by:

Illegal grand jury leaks,
A fundraising speech by Earle for the Texas Democrat party that
inappropriately focused on the investigation,
Misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and
Extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in
exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them.

Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized for his methods:

The Dallas Morning News criticized Earle in the Hutchison case:

"the impression of partisan unfairness has certainly been
reinforced by the leaks and public comment about Hutchison's case
from the District Attorney's office throughout the summer. That
the Grand Jury investigation has been conducted with so much
fanfare such as the tip- offs to the new media when key records
were seized from the former treasurer's office has added a darker
tone to the cloudy proceedings." (Hutchison Probe; Fair and Speedy
trial is essential, The Dallas Morning News, September 28, 1993)

The Houston Chronicle called into question Earle's impartiality
and judgment:

"The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do
it again calls into question whether he has the necessary
impartiality and judgment to conduct the investigation that to a
great extent will determine whether Texas election campaigns will
be financed and perhaps determined by corporations or by
individuals."

(Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor judgment in
speaking at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost
for DeLay's defenders., The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm

Fred, would you accuse me of using biased sources if I quoted, say,
Paul Krugman (We already know the answer to that one, don't we?),

I've posted support for my claims that *particular* material from
Krugman was incorrect or incomplete.

Which has nothing todo with what I was saying, does it?

Yes, it does have something to do with what you were saying.

Several points here, Fred. First, if you had bothered to actually read
for content, you would have noticed that I was using Paul Krugman as an
example of a biased columnist. But, no, you didn't. Instead, you
decided to make something of a fool of yourself by showing that you
sometimes don't bother to read what you are responding to. Second, the
article lyou quoted in our last encounter was a political puff piece,
posted in a known conservative magazine, essentially saying the only
thing wrong with Bush's economy is that he isn't saying how wonderful
it is as much as he should. I presented several points of data that
showed the economy was not nearly as wonderful as your guy said it was.
Then, in a seperate post, I provided a link to a Business Weed article
(hardly a bastion of liberalism there) that showed that economists were
worried that too much of our economy was based on the housing and
construction markets. You never commented on this. So, I would say your
source was at least as well refuted as you claimed he refuted Krugman
(not, that was a compliciated sentence).

Michael Moore, etc? Yet, you expect us to accept your quoting of
such sources as Michelle Malkin, the Washington Times, etc.

Sorry, but those sources are biased.

Prove that the above material is incorrect, or concede the argument.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I said they were biased, Fred.
And, I said nothing about your MSM sources, you will notice.

Yes, I did notice that. So you concede that they might be correct in
spite of their alleged "bias?"

The bias was attributed to the Times, National Review, and Michelle
Mailkin sources.

Oh, and Deadrat spoke about much of what you posted.

--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 06:02:11 PM

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130104327.930630.214850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130043788.437549.206560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130030420.017286.42490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

<...>

(Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor judgment in
speaking at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended
boost for DeLay's defenders., The Houston Chronicle, May 20,
2005)

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm

Fred, would you accuse me of using biased sources if I quoted,
say, Paul Krugman (We already know the answer to that one, don't
we?),

I've posted support for my claims that *particular* material from
Krugman was incorrect or incomplete.

Which has nothing todo with what I was saying, does it?

Yes, it does have something to do with what you were saying.

Several points here, Fred. First, if you had bothered to actually read
for content, you would have noticed that I was using Paul Krugman as
an example of a biased columnist.

Oh. Sorry, I read that as "We already know" that I (Fred) consider him
to be a biased columnist.

But, no, you didn't. Instead, you
decided to make something of a fool of yourself by showing that you
sometimes don't bother to read what you are responding to.

I read it. I'd say you didn't write it clearly.

Second, the
article lyou quoted in our last encounter was a political puff piece,
posted in a known conservative magazine, essentially saying the only
thing wrong with Bush's economy is that he isn't saying how wonderful
it is as much as he should.

Nonsense. That article directly addressed the issue that *you* raised
from Krugman.

I presented several points of data that
showed the economy was not nearly as wonderful as your guy said it
was. Then, in a seperate post, I provided a link to a Business Weed
article (hardly a bastion of liberalism there) that showed that
economists were worried that too much of our economy was based on the
housing and construction markets.

Ask six economists and you'll get twelve opinions.

You never commented on this. So, I
would say your source was at least as well refuted as you claimed he
refuted Krugman (not, that was a compliciated sentence).

As someone else said, there are opinions, and there are facts.

Michael Moore, etc? Yet, you expect us to accept your quoting of
such sources as Michelle Malkin, the Washington Times, etc.

Sorry, but those sources are biased.

Prove that the above material is incorrect, or concede the
argument.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I said they were biased,
Fred. And, I said nothing about your MSM sources, you will notice.

Yes, I did notice that. So you concede that they might be correct in
spite of their alleged "bias?"

The bias was attributed to the Times, National Review, and Michelle
Mailkin sources.

You still haven't shown that they got their facts wrong.
--
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: "David Fritzinger"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 08:56:04 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130104327.930630.214850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130043788.437549.206560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130030420.017286.42490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

<...>

Fred, would you accuse me of using biased sources if I quoted,
say, Paul Krugman (We already know the answer to that one, don't
we?),

I've posted support for my claims that *particular* material from
Krugman was incorrect or incomplete.

Which has nothing todo with what I was saying, does it?

Yes, it does have something to do with what you were saying.

Several points here, Fred. First, if you had bothered to actually read
for content, you would have noticed that I was using Paul Krugman as
an example of a biased columnist.

Oh. Sorry, I read that as "We already know" that I (Fred) consider him
to be a biased columnist.

Why did you cut the part of the sentence that makes it clear what I was
saying?

But, no, you didn't. Instead, you
decided to make something of a fool of yourself by showing that you
sometimes don't bother to read what you are responding to.

I read it. I'd say you didn't write it clearly.

Your dishonest cutting didn't make the meaning any clearer, did it?

Nonsense. That article directly addressed the issue that *you* raised
from Krugman.

And the article was opinion, written by someone who was clearly a Bush
supporter and a supporter of "supply-side" economics, aka, voodoo
economics (according to Bush's father).

Ask six economists and you'll get twelve opinions.

Two points: If that is so, why should I believe yours? And, the article
presented data saying how much of our economy depends on the housing
and construction sectors. They directly addressed the point you were
trying to make, and supported Krugman.

You never commented on this. So, I
would say your source was at least as well refuted as you claimed he
refuted Krugman (not, that was a compliciated sentence).

As someone else said, there are opinions, and there are facts.

Right, and all you did was present opinions. I'm glad we got that
cleared up.
8^)

Michael Moore, etc? Yet, you expect us to accept your quoting of
such sources as Michelle Malkin, the Washington Times, etc.

Sorry, but those sources are biased.

Prove that the above material is incorrect, or concede the
argument.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I said they were biased,
Fred. And, I said nothing about your MSM sources, you will notice.

Yes, I did notice that. So you concede that they might be correct in
spite of their alleged "bias?"

The bias was attributed to the Times, National Review, and Michelle
Mailkin sources.

You still haven't shown that they got their facts wrong.

No, but others certainly put grave doubts on their "facts", considering
that your Mailkin source was a quote from Tom DeLay.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.

User: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	22 Oct 2005 08:39:20 PM

Fred,
An excellent post, that is, compared with your previous efforts, which
consisted
mainly of puerile insults and "Izz so!" You have actually attempted to
gather some
evidence. Bravo!
A couple of words of advice.
Opinions are just that, opinions. Beware of their source. In other words,
don't
touch the Washington Times. You don't know where it's been.
If you want to convince others that you're not alone, quoting the National
Review
is fine. If you want to convince others that you're right, find another
source. Look at
it this way: If the information content of a message is the negative log of
its probability,
what's the information content of the National Review saying Earle is wrong?
Doesn't
mean Earle isn't wrong. This is just advice on your rhetorical approach.
Careful with your attributions. You quote things, including a paragraph
that accuses
Earle of illegal behavior (including extortion). It looks like these are
the words of
Michelle Malkin, whose site you quote. They're not. Michelle Malkin is
quoting
Tom DeLay. Remember: negative log of the probability.
Let's take two of your pieces of evidence. "Illegal" grand jury leaks.
Happens all
the time. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it's because witnesses called
before
the grand jury are free to discuss their own testimony. Prosecutors and
grand jurors
are supposed to keep their mouths shut, but generally witnesses don't have
to. This
makes it tough to say which leaks are illegal.
Second topic: Earle's "inappropriate" speech at a fund raiser. What did he
actually
say? I don't know. But check this url:
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/05/20EARLE.html
which says
In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to DeLay:
"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom DeLay,
it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before."
If that's true (and you could check it out), then this hardly seem to back
up all
the pious mouthings about Earle discussing an ongoing case.
All in all, though, good job.
Deadrat
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F7C242841AAfstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Fyy6f.409$Lv.360@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F6AF4D99EF0fstone69@213.155.197.138...

Enkidu the Atheist <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F68BF0E509A255229@130.133.1.4:

Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:e396f.17920$6e1.17766@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

towelie wrote:

TV's

wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

He looks like he's excited about the prospect of getting assraped
in prison.

He isn't going to prison because the charge is bogus, leveled by a
polital hack prosecuter. He had more than enough hard money
contributions to pay for his hard money expenses. That is the
bottom line. Klaus

The "polital hack prosecuter" who prosecuted over twice as many
democrats for corruption as republicans?

And all of them political opponents of Ronnie Earle or his cronies.

See, here's where we're expecting a list of people Earle has indicted
and a short explanation of why each is a political opponent. Or are
you just quoting someone else's opinion without attribution? Or are
you just making it up?

[begin cite]

Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office for attacks on his
political and personal enemies.

·"The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor investigating Mr. DeLay has a
history of using his office for partisan ends."(Congressional
prerogative, The Washington Times, November 19, 2004)

·Earle has demonstrated a past zeal for indicting conservative figures
and even liberals with whom he has personal or professional
disagreements. (Target: DeLay, National Review, April 11, 2005)

Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have frequently failed - are
designed for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is the same partisan
prosecutor who politically indicted and failed to convict:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he was Comptroller - later he
was Lt. Governor)
Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox

Ronnie Earle's three year political vendetta against Rep. DeLay has been
marked by:

Illegal grand jury leaks,
A fundraising speech by Earle for the Texas Democrat party that
inappropriately focused on the investigation,
Misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and
Extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in
exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them.

Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized for his methods:

The Dallas Morning News criticized Earle in the Hutchison case:

"the impression of partisan unfairness has certainly been reinforced by
the leaks and public comment about Hutchison's case from the District
Attorney's office throughout the summer. That the Grand Jury
investigation has been conducted with so much fanfare such as the tip-
offs to the new media when key records were seized from the former
treasurer's office has added a darker tone to the cloudy proceedings."
(Hutchison Probe; Fair and Speedy trial is essential, The Dallas Morning
News, September 28, 1993)

The Houston Chronicle called into question Earle's impartiality and
judgment:

"The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do it
again calls into question whether he has the necessary impartiality and
judgment to conduct the investigation that to a great extent will
determine whether Texas election campaigns will be financed and perhaps
determined by corporations or by individuals."

(Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor judgment in speaking at
a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's
defenders., The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm

--
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: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	22 Oct 2005 09:23:00 PM

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:cRB6f.1244$8W.960@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
Top-posted material moved.

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F7C242841AAfstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Fyy6f.409$Lv.360@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F6AF4D99EF0fstone69@213.155.197.138...

Enkidu the Atheist <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F68BF0E509A255229@130.133.1.4:

Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:e396f.17920$6e1.17766@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

towelie wrote:

TV's

wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

He looks like he's excited about the prospect of getting
assraped in prison.

He isn't going to prison because the charge is bogus, leveled
by a polital hack prosecuter. He had more than enough hard
money contributions to pay for his hard money expenses. That is
the bottom line. Klaus

The "polital hack prosecuter" who prosecuted over twice as many
democrats for corruption as republicans?

And all of them political opponents of Ronnie Earle or his
cronies.

See, here's where we're expecting a list of people Earle has
indicted and a short explanation of why each is a political
opponent. Or are you just quoting someone else's opinion without
attribution? Or are you just making it up?

[begin cite]

Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office for attacks on his
political and personal enemies.

·"The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor investigating Mr. DeLay has a
history of using his office for partisan ends."(Congressional
prerogative, The Washington Times, November 19, 2004)

·Earle has demonstrated a past zeal for indicting conservative
figures and even liberals with whom he has personal or professional
disagreements. (Target: DeLay, National Review, April 11, 2005)

Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have frequently failed - are
designed for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is the same
partisan prosecutor who politically indicted and failed to convict:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he was Comptroller - later he
was Lt. Governor)
Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox

Ronnie Earle's three year political vendetta against Rep. DeLay has
been marked by:

Illegal grand jury leaks,
A fundraising speech by Earle for the Texas Democrat party that
inappropriately focused on the investigation,
Misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and
Extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in
exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them.

Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized for his methods:

The Dallas Morning News criticized Earle in the Hutchison case:

"the impression of partisan unfairness has certainly been reinforced
by the leaks and public comment about Hutchison's case from the
District Attorney's office throughout the summer. That the Grand Jury
investigation has been conducted with so much fanfare such as the
tip- offs to the new media when key records were seized from the
former treasurer's office has added a darker tone to the cloudy
proceedings." (Hutchison Probe; Fair and Speedy trial is essential,
The Dallas Morning News, September 28, 1993)

The Houston Chronicle called into question Earle's impartiality and
judgment:

"The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do it
again calls into question whether he has the necessary impartiality
and judgment to conduct the investigation that to a great extent will
determine whether Texas election campaigns will be financed and
perhaps determined by corporations or by individuals."

(Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor judgment in speaking
at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's
defenders., The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm

I don't accept your blanket dismissal of them either.

If you want to convince others that you're not alone, quoting the
National Review
is fine. If you want to convince others that you're right, find
another source. Look at
it this way: If the information content of a message is the negative
log of its probability,
what's the information content of the National Review saying Earle is
wrong? Doesn't
mean Earle isn't wrong. This is just advice on your rhetorical
approach.

Careful with your attributions. You quote things, including a
paragraph that accuses
Earle of illegal behavior (including extortion). It looks like these
are the words of
Michelle Malkin, whose site you quote. They're not. Michelle Malkin
is quoting
Tom DeLay. Remember: negative log of the probability.

You didn't actually address the charges either.

Let's take two of your pieces of evidence. "Illegal" grand jury
leaks. Happens all
the time. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it's because witnesses
called before
the grand jury are free to discuss their own testimony. Prosecutors
and grand jurors
are supposed to keep their mouths shut, but generally witnesses don't
have to. This
makes it tough to say which leaks are illegal.

Second topic: Earle's "inappropriate" speech at a fund raiser. What
did he actually
say? I don't know. But check this url:

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/05/20EARLE.h

ml

which says

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to DeLay:
"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom
DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one
before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

If that's true (and you could check it out), then this hardly seem to
back up all
the pious mouthings about Earle discussing an ongoing case.

All in all, though, good job.

Deadrat

Please don't top-post. And check your line wrap.
I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM papers - the
Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is that an implicit
acceptance of that material?
--
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: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 02:28:51 AM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F7E3D209639fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:cRB6f.1244$8W.960@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:

Top-posted material moved.

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F7C242841AAfstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Fyy6f.409$Lv.360@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F6AF4D99EF0fstone69@213.155.197.138...

Enkidu the Atheist <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F68BF0E509A255229@130.133.1.4:

Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:e396f.17920$6e1.17766@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

towelie wrote:

TV's

wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

He looks like he's excited about the prospect of getting
assraped in prison.

He isn't going to prison because the charge is bogus, leveled
by a polital hack prosecuter. He had more than enough hard
money contributions to pay for his hard money expenses. That is
the bottom line. Klaus

The "polital hack prosecuter" who prosecuted over twice as many
democrats for corruption as republicans?

And all of them political opponents of Ronnie Earle or his
cronies.

See, here's where we're expecting a list of people Earle has
indicted and a short explanation of why each is a political
opponent. Or are you just quoting someone else's opinion without
attribution? Or are you just making it up?

[begin cite]

Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office for attacks on his
political and personal enemies.

·"The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor investigating Mr. DeLay has a
history of using his office for partisan ends."(Congressional
prerogative, The Washington Times, November 19, 2004)

·Earle has demonstrated a past zeal for indicting conservative
figures and even liberals with whom he has personal or professional
disagreements. (Target: DeLay, National Review, April 11, 2005)

Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have frequently failed - are
designed for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is the same
partisan prosecutor who politically indicted and failed to convict:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he was Comptroller - later he
was Lt. Governor)
Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox

Ronnie Earle's three year political vendetta against Rep. DeLay has
been marked by:

Illegal grand jury leaks,
A fundraising speech by Earle for the Texas Democrat party that
inappropriately focused on the investigation,
Misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and
Extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in
exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them.

Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized for his methods:

The Dallas Morning News criticized Earle in the Hutchison case:

"the impression of partisan unfairness has certainly been reinforced
by the leaks and public comment about Hutchison's case from the
District Attorney's office throughout the summer. That the Grand Jury
investigation has been conducted with so much fanfare such as the
tip- offs to the new media when key records were seized from the
former treasurer's office has added a darker tone to the cloudy
proceedings." (Hutchison Probe; Fair and Speedy trial is essential,
The Dallas Morning News, September 28, 1993)

The Houston Chronicle called into question Earle's impartiality and
judgment:

"The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do it
again calls into question whether he has the necessary impartiality
and judgment to conduct the investigation that to a great extent will
determine whether Texas election campaigns will be financed and
perhaps determined by corporations or by individuals."

(Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor judgment in speaking
at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's
defenders., The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm

I don't accept your blanket dismissal of them either.

It's not that everything in the WT is wrong. Once, I actually saw something
true in the headline of a supermarket tabloid. If you want to convince others
that your argument is sound, stay away from a Moonie paper.
<snip warning about the National Review>
<snip warning about misattribution>

You didn't actually address the charges either.

No, I didn't. I was talking about *your* argument. If you can
show Malkin is reliable, quote her. But at her url, the quote was
from DeLay.
<snip>

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to DeLay:
"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom
DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one
before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

No one expects a prosecutor to be objective about people they seek
to convict. If they didn't think they were criminals, they wouldn't have
them indicted. The expectation is that they will play by the rules. Maybe
Earle isn't doing that, but this one quote is a pretty weak reed.

If that's true (and you could check it out), then this hardly seem to
back up all
the pious mouthings about Earle discussing an ongoing case.

All in all, though, good job.

Deadrat

Please don't top-post.

Sorry. I won't top post you.

And check your line wrap.

I increased the line length, but the setting I had shouldn't have
caused a wrap.

I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM papers - the
Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is that an implicit
acceptance of that material?

Accept what? The opinions of two newspapers? I'll accept that they hold
those opinions.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369

<snip>
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 07:23:32 AM

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:TYG6f.1821$Lv.886@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F7E3D209639fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:cRB6f.1244$8W.960@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:

Top-posted material moved.

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F7C242841AAfstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Fyy6f.409$Lv.360@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F6AF4D99EF0fstone69@213.155.197.138...

Enkidu the Atheist <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F68BF0E509A255229@130.133.1.4:

Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:e396f.17920$6e1.17766@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

towelie wrote:

TV's

wrote:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

He looks like he's excited about the prospect of getting
assraped in prison.

The "polital hack prosecuter" who prosecuted over twice as
many democrats for corruption as republicans?

And all of them political opponents of Ronnie Earle or his
cronies.

I don't accept your blanket dismissal of them either.

It's not that everything in the WT is wrong. Once, I actually saw
something true in the headline of a supermarket tabloid. If you want
to convince others that your argument is sound, stay away from a
Moonie paper.

You could say the same about any MSM paper as well.

You didn't actually address the charges either.

No, I didn't. I was talking about *your* argument. If you can
show Malkin is reliable, quote her. But at her url, the quote was
from DeLay.

You're still just tossing out ad hominems instead of addressing the
material.
I notice that you haven't bothered to challenge the proof that Ronnie
Earle has made politically-motivated indictments against his Democrat
opponents as well as Republicans.

<snip>

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to DeLay:
"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom
DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the
one before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

No one expects a prosecutor to be objective about people they seek
to convict. If they didn't think they were criminals, they wouldn't
have them indicted. The expectation is that they will play by the
rules. Maybe Earle isn't doing that, but this one quote is a pretty
weak reed.

He was not just talking about DeLay there, that quote indicates a
prejudice against all of DeLay's possible successors as well.

If that's true (and you could check it out), then this hardly seem
to back up all
the pious mouthings about Earle discussing an ongoing case.

All in all, though, good job.

Deadrat

Please don't top-post.

Sorry. I won't top post you.

And check your line wrap.

I increased the line length, but the setting I had shouldn't have
caused a wrap.

I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM papers -
the Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is that an implicit
acceptance of that material?

Accept what? The opinions of two newspapers? I'll accept that they
hold those opinions.

Since the whole point of the material was to show that Ronnie Earle has
a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated indictments, I
guess that about covers it.
--
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: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 08:04:02 PM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote

I notice that you haven't bothered to challenge the proof that
Ronnie Earle has made politically-motivated indictments
against his Democrat opponents as well as Republicans.

Tic... toc... tic... toc... tic... toc...
The time is coming, "Fred," and when it does your goddess,
Tom Delay, is going to need a lot more than just smears
against the prosecution. He's going to need a real defense. He's
going to need a criminal defense. Once in court, "They're biased"
simply won't cut it. After the very first time they make that smear
in court, and the prosecution objects, the judge will sustain the
objection & your goddess will never be able to throw that smear
again.
He'll have to address the actual facts of the case.
Yup.
Instead of whining like a little girl, Delay is going to have to
address the facts of the case, explain the evidence.
Delay, who flew to Houston for his court appearance on Friday
in a corporate Jet owned by R.J. Renolds (a corporation that
Delay accepted $17,000 "donation" to his legal defense fund),
will have to answer the charges that he funneled corporate
contributions to candidates in Texas through his own personal
PAC.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5683296.html
It is against Texas law for corporations to contribute to candidates
for elective office. Delay's PAC, "Texans for a Republican Majority,"
took corporate money and then gave it to candidates for public office
in Texas. Period. They took corporate money specifically to help
finance the campaigns of Republican candidates in Texas. And, yes,
Delay has to defend his actions. In court. With facts. Not smears, but
facts.
.

User: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 01:03:35 PM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8557AA3E3fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

<snip>

I don't accept your blanket dismissal of them either.

It's not that everything in the WT is wrong. Once, I actually saw
something true in the headline of a supermarket tabloid. If you want
to convince others that your argument is sound, stay away from a
Moonie paper.

You could say the same about any MSM paper as well.

I suspect that you know this is nonsense, but what I'm talking about
is your rhetorical approach. Don't quote Moonies if you want anyone
to take you seriously.

You didn't actually address the charges either.

No, I didn't. I was talking about *your* argument. If you can
show Malkin is reliable, quote her. But at her url, the quote was
from DeLay.

You're still just tossing out ad hominems instead of addressing the
material.

Sorry, but I don't understand this comment. I haven't said anything
about Malkin's reliability. You give a url to her site on which she
quotes Tom Delay. I'm saying that you should make clear that the
words are Delay's, not Malkin's. In which case, from the point of
view of persuasion, we can safely ignore them.

I notice that you haven't bothered to challenge the proof that Ronnie
Earle has made politically-motivated indictments against his Democrat
opponents as well as Republicans.

Several reasons. The first is that my comments are directed to your
*argument* Basically, talking about how well it plays. Secondly my
comments are directed to *your* argument. And note that that's all
it is, an argument based on other people's opinions. This doesn't
constitute "proof." The burden is on you to produce facts and sources.
Lastly, motive simply doesn't matter very much. Selective or malicious
prosecution is another matter. And Earle may be guilty of one or both.
I don't know. But why he brings indictments is of little interest to me
or help for your hero.
Notice that the question of Earle's motives should show you clearly how
dangerous the tu quoque argument is. It can get thrown back at you.
Ken Starr's vendetta was all about political motivation. Does that mean
that Clinton didn't lie under oath?

<snip>

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to DeLay:
"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom
DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the
one before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

No one expects a prosecutor to be objective about people they seek
to convict. If they didn't think they were criminals, they wouldn't
have them indicted. The expectation is that they will play by the
rules. Maybe Earle isn't doing that, but this one quote is a pretty
weak reed.

He was not just talking about DeLay there, that quote indicates a
prejudice against all of DeLay's possible successors as well.

Only if the Republicans select another criminal bully.
<snip>

I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM papers -
the Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is that an implicit
acceptance of that material?

Accept what? The opinions of two newspapers? I'll accept that they
hold those opinions.

Since the whole point of the material was to show that Ronnie Earle has
a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated indictments, I
guess that about covers it.

You're not paying enough attention to your rhetorical stance, let alone
the factual foundations of your argument. When I suggest that you don't
quote a Moonie paper because of its history of bias, you say that they're
no different from any MSM outlet. But then you go on to rely on the
opinions of two MSM papers.
Does Earle have "a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated
indictments"? I don't know. I'm suggesting that you don't either. What
you have is a series of opinions that you agree with. Unfortunately, one
of those opinions is that of the man indicted. What it will take is some
understanding of the law and the particular facts of the cases.
Deadrat

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369

<snip>
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 05:48:40 PM

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:XfQ6f.2374$Lv.510@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8557AA3E3fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

<snip>

I don't accept your blanket dismissal of them either.

It's not that everything in the WT is wrong. Once, I actually saw
something true in the headline of a supermarket tabloid. If you
want to convince others that your argument is sound, stay away from
a Moonie paper.

You could say the same about any MSM paper as well.

I suspect that you know this is nonsense, but what I'm talking about
is your rhetorical approach. Don't quote Moonies if you want anyone
to take you seriously.

Prove that the Washington Times reporter who wrote the piece quoted is a
Moonie. Even if that's true, prove that he's *wrong*.

You didn't actually address the charges either.

No, I didn't. I was talking about *your* argument. If you can
show Malkin is reliable, quote her. But at her url, the quote was
from DeLay.

You're still just tossing out ad hominems instead of addressing the
material.

You're too busy deciding how to ignore the material instead of
addressing it.

I notice that you haven't bothered to challenge the proof that Ronnie
Earle has made politically-motivated indictments against his Democrat
opponents as well as Republicans.

Several reasons. The first is that my comments are directed to your
*argument* Basically, talking about how well it plays.

That is apparantly all you *can* do, since you have completely failed to
address any substantive points.

Secondly my
comments are directed to *your* argument. And note that that's all
it is, an argument based on other people's opinions. This doesn't
constitute "proof." The burden is on you to produce facts and
sources.

The facts are there, whether you like them or not. Calling them
"opinions" won't make them go away.

Lastly, motive simply doesn't matter very much. Selective or
malicious
prosecution is another matter. And Earle may be guilty of one or
both. I don't know. But why he brings indictments is of little
interest to me or help for your hero.

What hero?

Notice that the question of Earle's motives should show you clearly
how dangerous the tu quoque argument is. It can get thrown back at
you. Ken Starr's vendetta was all about political motivation. Does
that mean that Clinton didn't lie under oath?

Ken Starr didn't have a record of bringing *baseless* charges against
political rivals.

<snip>

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to DeLay:
"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom
DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces
the one before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

No one expects a prosecutor to be objective about people they seek
to convict. If they didn't think they were criminals, they
wouldn't have them indicted. The expectation is that they will
play by the rules. Maybe Earle isn't doing that, but this one
quote is a pretty weak reed.

He was not just talking about DeLay there, that quote indicates a
prejudice against all of DeLay's possible successors as well.

Only if the Republicans select another criminal bully.

He's obviously prejudging any successor to be a bully.

<snip>

I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM papers
- the Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is that an
implicit acceptance of that material?

Accept what? The opinions of two newspapers? I'll accept that
they hold those opinions.

Since the whole point of the material was to show that Ronnie Earle
has a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated indictments,
I guess that about covers it.

You're not paying enough attention to your rhetorical stance, let
alone the factual foundations of your argument.

You're still not addressing the facts.

When I suggest that
you don't quote a Moonie paper because of its history of bias, you say
that they're no different from any MSM outlet. But then you go on to
rely on the opinions of two MSM papers.

You haven't proved that any of them, "Moonie paper" or MSM are in error
*in this case*.

Does Earle have "a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated
indictments"? I don't know. I'm suggesting that you don't either.

There were three such cases cited in the material that I quoted.

What you have is a series of opinions that you agree with.
Unfortunately, one of those opinions is that of the man indicted.
What it will take is some understanding of the law and the particular
facts of the cases.

Those facts have all been discussed as well.
--
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: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	23 Oct 2005 09:24:24 PM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8BF7A5CD04fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:XfQ6f.2374$Lv.510@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8557AA3E3fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

<snip>

I don't accept your blanket dismissal of them either.

It's not that everything in the WT is wrong. Once, I actually saw
something true in the headline of a supermarket tabloid. If you
want to convince others that your argument is sound, stay away from
a Moonie paper.

You could say the same about any MSM paper as well.

I suspect that you know this is nonsense, but what I'm talking about
is your rhetorical approach. Don't quote Moonies if you want anyone
to take you seriously.

Prove that the Washington Times reporter who wrote the piece quoted is a
Moonie. Even if that's true, prove that he's *wrong*.

You seem to have trouble reading for comprehension. The WT reporter may
be right for all I know. Do you want to be persuasive? Don't quote the WT.

You didn't actually address the charges either.

No, I didn't. I was talking about *your* argument. If you can
show Malkin is reliable, quote her. But at her url, the quote was
from DeLay.

You're still just tossing out ad hominems instead of addressing the
material.

You're too busy deciding how to ignore the material instead of
addressing it.

You're making an argument: Earle is corrupt. And as evidence,
you point to a statement by the guy he indicted?
I routinely ignore self-serving statements. So should you.

I notice that you haven't bothered to challenge the proof that Ronnie
Earle has made politically-motivated indictments against his Democrat
opponents as well as Republicans.

Several reasons. The first is that my comments are directed to your
*argument* Basically, talking about how well it plays.

That is apparantly all you *can* do,

(Now, who's stooped to ad hominems? And you know that's not true,
since I can and did rebut your figures on the housing bubble.)

since you have completely failed to
address any substantive points.

You've made an argument, but you haven't much substantive evidence.
Earle may be a crook, but I don't give much weight to Delay's statements
on the matter. Neither should you. Until you have substantive evidence,
I don't bear the burden of argument. You do.

The facts are there, whether you like them or not. Calling them
"opinions" won't make them go away.

They may be there. But if you can't distinguish an opinion from a fact,
you'll keep hearing that laughter near you. And let's face it: a statement
from Tom Delay that the prosecutor engaged in extortion doesn't carry
enough weight to be called a fact. May be true; may be false; certainly
suspect.

What hero?

Tom Delay.

Ken Starr didn't have a record of bringing *baseless* charges against
political rivals.

You're confused. We're talking about motivation, and how it's not really
relevant to the charges.

<snip>

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to DeLay:
"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom
DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces
the one before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

No one expects a prosecutor to be objective about people they seek
to convict. If they didn't think they were criminals, they
wouldn't have them indicted. The expectation is that they will
play by the rules. Maybe Earle isn't doing that, but this one
quote is a pretty weak reed.

He was not just talking about DeLay there, that quote indicates a
prejudice against all of DeLay's possible successors as well.

Only if the Republicans select another criminal bully.

He's obviously prejudging any successor to be a bully.

So what? So he thinks his political opponents are bullies. Since
bullying is not a crime, what difference does that make?

<snip>

I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM papers
- the Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is that an
implicit acceptance of that material?

Accept what? The opinions of two newspapers? I'll accept that
they hold those opinions.

Since the whole point of the material was to show that Ronnie Earle
has a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated indictments,
I guess that about covers it.

You're not paying enough attention to your rhetorical stance, let
alone the factual foundations of your argument.

You're still not addressing the facts.

True. Not the purpose of my post. You first.

When I suggest that
you don't quote a Moonie paper because of its history of bias, you say
that they're no different from any MSM outlet. But then you go on to
rely on the opinions of two MSM papers.

You haven't proved that any of them, "Moonie paper" or MSM are in error
*in this case*.

Not my burden. *You've* made an argument. Now quote some law and some
facts from specific cases. If the case law is unclear, quote the opinions of experts.
I don't base my arguments on editorials. Neither should you.

Does Earle have "a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated
indictments"? I don't know. I'm suggesting that you don't either.

There were three such cases cited in the material that I quoted.

Three cases he couldn't make? So what? How many cases resulted in
conviction? You haven't done enough homework (and don't ask me to do
it for you).

Those facts have all been discussed as well.

Not by you.
Deadrat

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369

<snip>
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	24 Oct 2005 09:11:17 AM

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sBX6f.1832$Y61.933@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8BF7A5CD04fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:XfQ6f.2374$Lv.510@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8557AA3E3fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

<snip>

I don't accept your blanket dismissal of them either.

It's not that everything in the WT is wrong. Once, I actually
saw something true in the headline of a supermarket tabloid. If
you want to convince others that your argument is sound, stay
away from a Moonie paper.

You could say the same about any MSM paper as well.

I suspect that you know this is nonsense, but what I'm talking
about is your rhetorical approach. Don't quote Moonies if you want
anyone to take you seriously.

Prove that the Washington Times reporter who wrote the piece quoted
is a Moonie. Even if that's true, prove that he's *wrong*.

You seem to have trouble reading for comprehension. The WT reporter
may be right for all I know. Do you want to be persuasive? Don't
quote the WT.

I'm reading just fine. I see that your objection to the Washington Times
is of no merit, since you can't even be bothered to produce evidence to
refute one of their articles.

You didn't actually address the charges either.

No, I didn't. I was talking about *your* argument. If you can
show Malkin is reliable, quote her. But at her url, the quote
was from DeLay.

You're still just tossing out ad hominems instead of addressing
the material.

Sorry, but I don't understand this comment. I haven't said
anything about Malkin's reliability. You give a url to her site on
which she quotes Tom Delay. I'm saying that you should make clear
that the words are Delay's, not Malkin's. In which case, from the
point of view of persuasion, we can safely ignore them.

You're too busy deciding how to ignore the material instead of
addressing it.

You're making an argument: Earle is corrupt. And as evidence,
you point to a statement by the guy he indicted?

I routinely ignore self-serving statements. So should you.

I see, you would routinely ignore the "Not Guilty" plea in a court and
proceed right to the sentencing.

I notice that you haven't bothered to challenge the proof that
Ronnie Earle has made politically-motivated indictments against
his Democrat opponents as well as Republicans.

Several reasons. The first is that my comments are directed to
your *argument* Basically, talking about how well it plays.

That is apparantly all you *can* do,

(Now, who's stooped to ad hominems? And you know that's not true,
since I can and did rebut your figures on the housing bubble.)

That was no ad hominem, that was an observation.

since you have completely failed to
address any substantive points.

You've made an argument, but you haven't much substantive evidence.
Earle may be a crook, but I don't give much weight to Delay's
statements on the matter. Neither should you. Until you have
substantive evidence, I don't bear the burden of argument. You do.

The facts are there, whether you like them or not. Calling them
"opinions" won't make them go away.

They may be there. But if you can't distinguish an opinion from a
fact, you'll keep hearing that laughter near you. And let's face it:
a statement from Tom Delay that the prosecutor engaged in extortion
doesn't carry enough weight to be called a fact. May be true; may be
false; certainly suspect.

Now you've conflated the whole article with one single quote from DeLay
himself. Nice job, oh *miserable failure* at rhetorical criticism.

What hero?

Tom Delay.

Nope, sorry.

Ken Starr didn't have a record of bringing *baseless* charges against
political rivals.

You're confused. We're talking about motivation, and how it's not
really relevant to the charges.

You're confused. I'm talking about evidence and past behavior.

<snip>

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to
DeLay: "This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it
isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one
bully replaces the one before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

No one expects a prosecutor to be objective about people they
seek to convict. If they didn't think they were criminals, they
wouldn't have them indicted. The expectation is that they will
play by the rules. Maybe Earle isn't doing that, but this one
quote is a pretty weak reed.

He was not just talking about DeLay there, that quote indicates a
prejudice against all of DeLay's possible successors as well.

Only if the Republicans select another criminal bully.

He's obviously prejudging any successor to be a bully.

So what? So he thinks his political opponents are bullies. Since
bullying is not a crime, what difference does that make?

Duh.

<snip>

I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM
papers - the Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is
that an implicit acceptance of that material?

Accept what? The opinions of two newspapers? I'll accept that
they hold those opinions.

Since the whole point of the material was to show that Ronnie
Earle has a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated
indictments, I guess that about covers it.

You're not paying enough attention to your rhetorical stance, let
alone the factual foundations of your argument.

You're still not addressing the facts.

True. Not the purpose of my post. You first.

When I suggest that
you don't quote a Moonie paper because of its history of bias, you
say that they're no different from any MSM outlet. But then you go
on to rely on the opinions of two MSM papers.

You haven't proved that any of them, "Moonie paper" or MSM are in
error *in this case*.

Not my burden. *You've* made an argument. Now quote some law and
some facts from specific cases.

Been there, done that. This part of this thread went a different
direction, and now you're trying to divert it again. You *could* just
drop it, but I guess your ego won't let you do that.

If the case law is unclear, quote the
opinions of experts. I don't base my arguments on editorials. Neither
should you.

Oh, what was that about opinions?

Does Earle have "a history of bringing baseless
politically-motivated indictments"? I don't know. I'm suggesting
that you don't either.

There were three such cases cited in the material that I quoted.

Three cases he couldn't make? So what? How many cases resulted in
conviction? You haven't done enough homework (and don't ask me to do
it for you).

Three particularly egregious cases is a pretty good indication of what's
going on.

Those facts have all been discussed as well.

Not by you.

Yes, by me. In other threads.
--
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: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	24 Oct 2005 12:18:32 PM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F967B80B237fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sBX6f.1832$Y61.933@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8BF7A5CD04fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

<snip>

Prove that the Washington Times reporter who wrote the piece quoted
is a Moonie. Even if that's true, prove that he's *wrong*.

You seem to have trouble reading for comprehension. The WT reporter
may be right for all I know. Do you want to be persuasive? Don't
quote the WT.

I'm reading just fine. I see that your objection to the Washington Times
is of no merit, since you can't even be bothered to produce evidence to
refute one of their articles.

I'll type slower, so you can keep up. I'm commenting on your failures
to produce a coherent argument. Any time you quote the WT, you're
talking to yourself. That may be OK with you. In that case, then quite
obviously you can ignore my advice.
<snip>

I routinely ignore self-serving statements. So should you.

I see, you would routinely ignore the "Not Guilty" plea in a court and
proceed right to the sentencing.

I'm beginning to think your problem is worse than reading comprehension.
How could you think this statement is anything but absurd? We're talking
about self-serving statements. People who plead not guilty are saying that
the state cannot prove a case against them beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Notice that they don't plead innocent.) This is their right under our system.
I certainly wouldn't consider the plea evidence one way or another, not least
because the defendant isn't required to prove anything at all. But why would
that consideration lead me to dispense with a trial?
Do you even think about your argument before you post?
<snip>

since you have completely failed to
address any substantive points.

You've made an argument, but you haven't much substantive evidence.
Earle may be a crook, but I don't give much weight to Delay's
statements on the matter. Neither should you. Until you have
substantive evidence, I don't bear the burden of argument. You do.

The facts are there, whether you like them or not. Calling them
"opinions" won't make them go away.

They may be there. But if you can't distinguish an opinion from a
fact, you'll keep hearing that laughter near you. And let's face it:
a statement from Tom Delay that the prosecutor engaged in extortion
doesn't carry enough weight to be called a fact. May be true; may be
false; certainly suspect.

Now you've conflated the whole article with one single quote from DeLay
himself. Nice job, oh *miserable failure* at rhetorical criticism.

Let me help you here. Misattribution is an egregiously miserable failure.
You quoted an opinion piece by Malkin in such a way as to put Tom DeLay's
words in her mouth. I don't think you did that to mislead anyone; I think
it was an oversight. But that's only marginally better. Did you want to
comment on your post? (Hint: the appropriate answer is yes.)
And of course, the entire article was simply Malkin's opinions.

What hero?

Tom Delay.

Nope, sorry.

Ken Starr didn't have a record of bringing *baseless* charges against
political rivals.

You're confused. We're talking about motivation, and how it's not
really relevant to the charges.

You're confused. I'm talking about evidence and past behavior.

Try to follow along. I'm typing as slowly as I can. You're *not* talking about
past behavior. Earle's behavior was to bring indictments. Your complaint is
that the behavior was motivated by bad faith (i.e., biased political considerations).
I'm saying that this doesn't even matter. Prosecutors are not required to be
objective, and in any case, their motivations are not an issue.
This doesn't mean that Earle hasn't let his motivations lead him astray. This is a
separate issue. You might have a case here. I don't know. But you actually have
to *make* the case. You keep talking about evidence, but you never actually
provide any. I know it's not easy (at least not as easy as adopting some columnist's
opinions as your own). First of all, you have to look at all of Earle's campaign-law
indictments and tote up those against opponents. As you note, not all of these are
necessarily Republicans, but spotting the Democrats will require some
knowledge of the Texas political scene. Then you have to decide which cases are
baseless. Figuring this out requires looking at the individual cases and knowing the
relevant law. Hard to do if you're not a lawyer or from out of state. You'll probably
need to rely on experts.
Now that you've done the research, you can compare the number of klunkers to
the total number of cases. (Note: there's the annoying possibility that this still
won't tell you the answer.)
What are the numbers? I don't know. That's why I haven't decided
whether Earle is grandstanding or whether the indictment of DeLay is
proper.
You don't know the numbers either. But you've already made up your
mind. That's one difference between us.

In his eight-page speech, Earle made one reference to
DeLay: "This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it
isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one
bully replaces the one before."

That quote alone is enough to impeach Earle's objectivity.

No one expects a prosecutor to be objective about people they
seek to convict. If they didn't think they were criminals, they
wouldn't have them indicted. The expectation is that they will
play by the rules. Maybe Earle isn't doing that, but this one
quote is a pretty weak reed.

He was not just talking about DeLay there, that quote indicates a
prejudice against all of DeLay's possible successors as well.

Only if the Republicans select another criminal bully.

He's obviously prejudging any successor to be a bully.

So what? So he thinks his political opponents are bullies. Since
bullying is not a crime, what difference does that make?

Duh.

Well, I guess that settles it.

<snip>

I notice you didn't mention the other articles from the MSM
papers - the Dallas Morning News or the Houston Chronicle. Is
that an implicit acceptance of that material?

Accept what? The opinions of two newspapers? I'll accept that
they hold those opinions.

Since the whole point of the material was to show that Ronnie
Earle has a history of bringing baseless politically-motivated
indictments, I guess that about covers it.

You're not paying enough attention to your rhetorical stance, let
alone the factual foundations of your argument.

You're still not addressing the facts.

True. Not the purpose of my post. You first.

When I suggest that
you don't quote a Moonie paper because of its history of bias, you
say that they're no different from any MSM outlet. But then you go
on to rely on the opinions of two MSM papers.

You haven't proved that any of them, "Moonie paper" or MSM are in
error *in this case*.

Not my burden. *You've* made an argument. Now quote some law and
some facts from specific cases.

Been there, done that. This part of this thread went a different
direction, and now you're trying to divert it again. You *could* just
drop it, but I guess your ego won't let you do that.

You haven't been close and you've done nothing. I'm sorry that you
don't like the topic I've chosen to discuss, but I'm not required to stick
to your agenda. If you think I am, then the ego problem isn't mine.

If the case law is unclear, quote the
opinions of experts. I don't base my arguments on editorials. Neither
should you.

Oh, what was that about opinions?

It's certainly my opinion that basing arguments on facts is better than basing
them on editorial opinion. Are you seriously disagreeing with that opinion?

Does Earle have "a history of bringing baseless
politically-motivated indictments"? I don't know. I'm suggesting
that you don't either.

There were three such cases cited in the material that I quoted.

Three cases he couldn't make? So what? How many cases resulted in
conviction? You haven't done enough homework (and don't ask me to do
it for you).

Three particularly egregious cases is a pretty good indication of what's
going on.

An "egregious case" is simply one that stands out. The high-profile
cases you cite certainly do that. But are they a misuse of office? Might be.
Suppose you're right. Three cases out of six? I'd have to agree. Out of sixty?
I'm not so sure now. I don't know how many "bad" cases there were and I
don't know the total. Apparently, neither do you.

Those facts have all been discussed as well.

Not by you.

Yes, by me. In other threads.

Certainly I might have missed your discussion of Texas politics, Texas law, and
the facts of Earle's court cases.
Deadrat

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369

<snip>
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Best possible view of Tom DeLay	26 Oct 2005 08:55:26 AM

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:IH87f.1752$jV2.856@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F967B80B237fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:sBX6f.1832$Y61.933@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8BF7A5CD04fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

<snip>

Prove that the Washington Times reporter who wrote the piece
quoted is a Moonie. Even if that's true, prove that he's *wrong*.

You seem to have trouble reading for comprehension. The WT
reporter may be right for all I know. Do you want to be
persuasive? Don't quote the WT.

I'm reading just fine. I see that your objection to the Washington
Times is of no merit, since you can't even be bothered to produce
evidence to refute one of their articles.

I'll type slower, so you can keep up. I'm commenting on your
failures to produce a coherent argument. Any time you quote the WT,
you're talking to yourself. That may be OK with you. In that case,
then quite obviously you can ignore my advice.

<snip>

I routinely ignore self-serving statements. So should you.

I see, you would routinely ignore the "Not Guilty" plea in a court
and proceed right to the sentencing.

And that isn't self-serving?

(Notice that they don't plead
innocent.) This is their right under our system. I certainly wouldn't
consider the plea evidence one way or another, not least because the
defendant isn't required to prove anything at all. But why would that
consideration lead me to dispense with a trial?

Do you even think about your argument before you post?

Do you?

<snip>

since you have completely failed to
address any substantive points.

You've made an argument, but you haven't much substantive evidence.
Earle may be a crook, but I don't give much weight to Delay's
statements on the matter. Neither should you. Until you have
substantive evidence, I don't bear the burden of argument. You do.

Secondly my
comments are directed to *your* argument. And note that that's
all it is, an argument based on other people's opinions. This
doesn't constitute "proof." The burden is on you to produce
facts and sources.

The facts are there, whether you like them or not. Calling them
"opinions" won't make them go away.

They may be there. But if you