I’m not ignorant, nor am I ‘faking ignorant’. Labels, labels, labels…what’s the next one for me? Bigot? Sexist? Stupid? I’m sure you have a sack full of labels you’ve tried before. Just a hint - they won’t stick on me either. [/quote]
No, you’re still faking–with comments like giving the press fits—faking all the way because the press is documenting how he’s giving conservatives the fits and americans the fits.(Also Delay is an elitist—remember european golf junkets) Either you’re not reading the news or you’re isolated in Limbaugh’s(another elitist) world, Also I didn’t say ignorant did I?
Also I didn’t quote you saying “clean as a whistle”. I believe I mentioned several in here who think he’s clean as a whistle----which by the way is a metaphor, as in you think he’s done no wrong, its just the press, “I applaud him”, etc. As for labels, I was the one you asked “what airplane glue” are you sniffing in regards to informing you of your mistaken perception of Reagan’s tax cut, that was just FYI you know Rainjack, alot of people have been duped into thinking the same thing, they forget the cumulative effect of those darn taxes he raised…but back to Delay being brought down by his own party…
I’m not ignorant, nor am I ‘faking ignorant’. Labels, labels, labels…what’s the next one for me? Bigot? Sexist? Stupid? I’m sure you have a sack full of labels you’ve tried before. Just a hint - they won’t stick on me either.
No, you’re still faking–with comments like giving the press fits—faking all the way because the press is documenting how he’s giving conservatives the fits and americans the fits.(Also Delay is an elitist—remember european golf junkets) Either you’re not reading the news or you’re isolated in Limbaugh’s(another elitist) world, Also I didn’t say ignorant did I?
Also I didn’t quote you saying “clean as a whistle”. I believe I mentioned several in here who think he’s clean as a whistle----which by the way is a metaphor, as in you think he’s done no wrong, its just the press, “I applaud him”, etc. As for labels, I was the one you asked “what airplane glue” are you sniffing in regards to informing you of your mistaken perception of Reagan’s tax cut, that was just FYI you know Rainjack, alot of people have been duped into thinking the same thing, they forget the cumulative effect of those darn taxes he raised…but back to Delay being brought down by his own party… [/quote]
I’ve suspected you of pulling shit out of no where to make your points, but I’ve never really had proof. I have it now. You didn’t even read my post, did you? You just pulled out words, and fashioned them together so that you make your point. I even called you on this practice in my previous post, and asked you to stop. But like the little liberal lap-dog you are, you can’t quit playing out of their script.
I would ask for an apology for your gross mis-use of my words, but I fear that would be an exercise in futility.
Re-read my post. Strike that - try actually reading it one time all the way through. I never said Delay was innocent. But you would have known that had you actually read what I wrote.
Me taking pleasure in watching the press circling like buzzards on the off chance that they think they have uncovered yet another Watergate does not equate me with vlindly defending Delay’s innocence. But you would have already known that had you read my post.
You couldn’t even get my last paragraph right. I never accused you of calling me ignorant. At least not on this thread. I was was just connecting the dots - but I guess that is a skill best left to those posessing the wide-bristled brush that makes them right in their own minds.
Don’t quote me anymore if you are going to cut and paste only the words that, when connected together out of context, make you look good.
OK Rainjack, I apologize for using “choir boy” out of context, the proper contex was “compared too…” But essentially it changes nothing in my opinion, in regards to your intellectual honesty on this matter. At best your comparison makes you an apologist. How you can’t see the shamelessness of Delay’s actions even in his handling of the ethics committee, changing the rules that your guys put in place, changing the members on the committee who voted against him (with people who have donated to his defense fund–who obviously aren’t going to vote against him) c’mon Rainjack! And you continue to miss my point with the thread of conservatives realizing this guy is a bruise on the party—even wingnut Santorum yesterday said Delay got’s some explaining to do! Battle for King of the Wingnuts!
So I’m a wingnut if I don’t do what you tell me to do?
If I support Delay - then I can only be labeled as a wingnut?
Once again - show me where I make any comment wrt him being innocent. You can’t. That’s why you resort to making shit up. You libs are experts and putting words in peoples’ mouths.
But if all you can come up with is selective reading comprehension, and name calling, then I guess you gotta go with that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So I’m a wingnut if I don’t do what you tell me to do?
If I support Delay - then I can only be labeled as a wingnut?
Once again - show me where I make any comment wrt him being innocent. You can’t. That’s why you resort to making shit up. You libs are experts and putting words in peoples’ mouths.
But if all you can come up with is selective reading comprehension, and name calling, then I guess you gotta go with that. [/quote]
Hey buddy, I just hope your comments are not at the expense of Mrs. O’learys tax return…lol Now get back to work man!
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
RJ, you’ve just gotten the gist of 100meters whole argument! If you don’t agree with him and his verbatim lib talking points you’re a wingnut!
[/quote]
RJ welcome to the wingnut club!
All I have read so far from 100 about the Democrat “agenda’s” is what they are against. And if we don’t support thier pie in the sky schemes then we are standing in the way of progress. Throwing money at the problem isn’t the solutiona and the Dems are very short on ideas.
Take this to the next Democratic meeting: You guys have to be FOR something to be relevant.
And by the way if you are under 55, the Bush S.S. plan is a great idea. Why would anyone actually want to give the govt. more of their money? That’s just beyond me.
“On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.”
I’ll take bets with anyone who would like to do so on Delay’s maintaining his seat as long as he wants it – he may choose to resign, but he’s not going to lose a race in his district in Texas.
I mean, come on now – these are gerrymandered districts you’re talking about here. Fewer incumbent representatives lost their seats last election cycle than incumbent senators – even though there were only 33 senate seats up for election, while there were 435 house seats.
BTW, here’s a synopsis of DeLay’s supposed misdeeds from a left-center news source, Slate.com:
The Tom DeLay Scandals
A scorecard.
By Nicholas Thompson
Updated Thursday, April 7, 2005, at 3:40 PM PT
Tom DeLay, the second-ranking member of the House of Representatives, has long been a bogeyman to the left for his outrageous rhetoric, strong-arm tactics, and shady dealings. The congressman’s supporters and Republican colleagues had been pledging complete fealty, and stories about his dirty linen had stayed on the back pages. But if criticizing DeLay used to be suicidal, recently it’s become fashionable. A new Zogby poll shows that the formerly loyal constituents of Sugar Land, Texas, have turned on DeLay, and Republicans have begun muttering about pushing him out. The telltale sign that the piranhas smell blood in the water came when Wednesday’s New York Times fronted a story about the well-funded involvement of the congressman’s wife and daughter in his operations. The core of the story was old and the Times would likely have buried it a year ago. But the man known as “the hammer” is turning into a nail.
Here’s a scorecard of the key multiplying scandals involving DeLay. Each malefaction is rated on a scale of one to 10 for its stench and the trouble it will possibly cause.
TRMPAC. Stench: 5. Trouble: 8.
In 2001, Tom DeLay helped to set up an organization called TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) aimed at helping the Texas GOP gain control of the state Legislature. His goal was to force a redistricting of Texas’ congressional districts that would increase the Republican majority in Washington.
DeLay succeeded in sending five more Republicans to Congress. But his tactics created two problems. First, Texas has very strict laws forbidding the use of money raised from corporations in state races, and TRMPAC raised a lot of corporate money. Second, it made for one very shady deal. On Sept. 20, 2002, the director of TRMPAC sent $190,000, including money raised by corporations, to the Republican National State Elections Committee. Exactly two weeks later, that committee sent exactly $190,000 to state candidates favored by TRMPAC. Each transaction, taken alone, appears legal. Bundled together, they look like an effort to funnel corporate money into a race from which it was banned.
DeLay’s defense is that he didn’t know the details of what was happening in the organization, that the matching numbers of the $190,000 transfers were just a coincidence, and that the money raised from corporations was spent on administrative office expenses, which is legal in Texas legislative races. But all of those arguments have major weak spots that the experienced prosecutor on the case, Ronnie Earle, could expose. Grand juries have been secretly investigating the allegations of illegal campaign financing, and Earle has already indicted three of DeLay’s associates and eight corporate donors. DeLay hasn’t been indicted yet, but he could be. And if there’s a trial, his indicted associates might choose to squawk about the congressman’s misdeeds in exchange for less or no jail time.
Frequent Flying. Stench: 5. Trouble: 3.
House ethics rules prevent members from taking trips abroad funded by lobbyists or by “foreign agents,” groups or individuals registered to do political work for foreign organizations or governments. DeLay, however, has reportedly taken at least three such trips. In 1997, he went to Russia on the dime of a peculiar company based in the Bahamas and connected to Russian oil interests. In 2000, he went to Britain, his lavish journey paid for in part by a lobbyist. In 2001, he went to South Korea, funded by a recently registered foreign agent.
DeLay faces little danger because of these trips. Other congressmen, including Democrats, have taken similar trips and the House Ethics Committee, which has chief responsibility for policing such disciplinary infractions, is currently shuttered. After the committee admonished the Texas congressman for three infractions this fall, three Republican members were forced out and replaced with DeLay allies. The committee has not met this year because Democrats are protesting the new rules the committee has to operate under, which (surprise) make it much harder to initiate investigations.
The risk for DeLay here is that more reporters will unearth more trips, and they’ll perhaps find evidence that the funders happened to do particularly well when legislation they favored came before Congress. Worse, perhaps, the trips connect DeLay to the seedy world of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The Abramoff Muck. Stench: 6. Trouble: 8.
DeLay and Abramoff are old friends and allies. Now Abramoff is one of the most toxic men in Washington. John McCain is investigating him, as is the Department of Justice for allegedly bilking Native American tribes out of tens of millions of dollars while working for them as a lobbyist. (Read this Slate “Assessment” for more about Abramoff and his penchant for referring to his patrons as “troglodytes.” Jack Abramoff. ) It’s almost certain that some of the documents subpoenaed will cause trouble for DeLay. There’s even speculation in Washington that McCain is leading the investigation partly to get DeLay and thereby spare the Republican Party his hard-edged tactics and policies.
The Ethics Committee’s Docket. Stench: 9. Trouble: 2.
Before the House Ethics Committee was waylaid, it admonished Tom DeLay on three different fronts last year. The first ( http://www.house.gov/ethics/Medicare_Report.pdf ) was for appearing to offer a bribe to fellow Republican Rep. Nick Smith to win his support for the closely contested Medicare reform bill. The second ( http://www.house.gov/ethics/DeLay_letter.htm ) was for soliciting donations from a company called Westar Energy just as the House considered a bill of crucial import to the company. The third was for using a federal agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, to track down Democratic members of the Texas Legislature who were fleeing the state to block a vote regarding redistricting (see No. 1 above).
Each of these infractions was serious enough that the then-somnolent, now-comatose Ethics Committee was willing to act. At this point, however, the cases are probably finished. The Justice Department could investigate any of them, and it might already be quietly doing so. But, most likely, DeLay got away with a slap on the wrist.
Family Circus. Stench: 3. Trouble: 2.
As revealed in Wednesday’s New York Times ( Political Groups Paid Two Relatives of House Leader - The New York Times f4d1a399b234e303&ei=5094&partner=homepage ) ?to DeLay’s fury, as he expressed today ( DeLay Denounces Report on Payments to His Family - The New York Times )?his wife and daughter have long been on the payroll of several of the political organizations he controls. Friends and family of congressmen have done this kind of work for a long time, but they don’t normally rake in the sums that Christine DeLay and Danielle DeLay Ferro did: $500,000 in four years.
The payments sound suspicious, but the story will as likely as not blow over. It allows DeLay to play the victim while defending his family’s honor; most important, the key issue is whether the two women received a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work?which they probably did. Ferro and Christine DeLay clearly put in long hours for their man; they play a major role in what is known in Washington as DeLay, Inc. They will probably go down only if the whole organization goes down.
And that, of course, is the real danger for Tom DeLay. It’s possible that one known bad act, particularly TRMPAC, could do him in. It’s also possible that he’ll be felled by a misdeed that hasn’t been uncovered yet?for example, dirt could come out of DeLay’s nonprofit foundation for orphans, which critics charge serves as a backdoor for unregulated donations to him. The much greater risk, though, is that the parade of scandals in its entirety will lead his colleagues to vaporize him one night. DeLay can ask Sen. Trent Lott what that feels like.
Nicholas Thompson is a senior editor at Legal Affairs.
Photograph of Tom DeLay by Luke Frazza/AFP/Getty Images.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So I’m a wingnut if I don’t do what you tell me to do?
If I support Delay - then I can only be labeled as a wingnut?
Once again - show me where I make any comment wrt him being innocent. You can’t. That’s why you resort to making shit up. You libs are experts and putting words in peoples’ mouths.
But if all you can come up with is selective reading comprehension, and name calling, then I guess you gotta go with that. [/quote]
Oh dear the word game again? I’m afraid to even ask, but did I call you a wingnut? I thought I said Santorum was battling Delay for king of the wingnuts. Again the point of the thread is conservatives are turning on Delay, one more time conservatives are turning on Delay, and instead of just making stuff up I am actually posting articles of public record to document my claims. Again, I’m not sure if you’re saying I called you a wingnut or not (I presume you’ll play it either way) but if you’re saying I did then you’re putting words in my mouth, and you’d be guilty of selective reading right? Curious.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
RJ, you’ve just gotten the gist of 100meters whole argument! If you don’t agree with him and his verbatim lib talking points you’re a wingnut!
[/quote]
Ah Joe… You jest! My argument is conservatives turning on Delay. Perhaps I’ll post some thread reading cliff notes for you sometime, but if you try reading you’ll see that the articles posted aren’t from the DNC! Most are to my point, of conservatives turning on Delay (for the millionth time) or better conservative insiders ratting out Delay, or conservatives pissed with Delay. And again I’ve only called Delay and Santorum wingnuts in this thread.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
RJ, you’ve just gotten the gist of 100meters whole argument! If you don’t agree with him and his verbatim lib talking points you’re a wingnut!
Ah Joe… You jest! My argument is conservatives turning on Delay. Perhaps I’ll post some thread reading cliff notes for you sometime, but if you try reading you’ll see that the articles posted aren’t from the DNC! Most are to my point, of conservatives turning on Delay (for the millionth time) or better conservative insiders ratting out Delay, or conservatives pissed with Delay. And again I’ve only called Delay and Santorum wingnuts in this thread.
[/quote]
Any comment on the transgressions Pelosi is accused of committing?
The media is turning on Delay and of course McCain will but he is a well known pain in the ass to both parties.
[quote]100meters wrote:
How you can’t see the shamelessness of Delay’s actions even in his handling of the ethics committee, changing the rules that your guys put in place, changing the members on the committee who voted against him (with people who have donated to his defense fund–who obviously aren’t going to vote against him) c’mon Rainjack! And you continue to miss my point with the thread of conservatives realizing this guy is a bruise on the party—even wingnut Santorum yesterday said Delay got’s some explaining to do! Battle for King of the Wingnuts![/quote]
I think the last wingnut statement was rather open-ended. It could mean that I am battling Santorum for King Wingnut, whinch is the interpretation that I went with.
It could mean that Delay is battling Santorum for the King’s job. That wouldn’t make sense though, because according to you Santorum is calling for Delay to explain himself - which doesn’t sound like they’re even on the same side of the ball.
It could even mean that those who are demanding an accountance by Delay as a wingnut.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
RJ, you’ve just gotten the gist of 100meters whole argument! If you don’t agree with him and his verbatim lib talking points you’re a wingnut!
RJ welcome to the wingnut club!
All I have read so far from 100 about the Democrat “agenda’s” is what they are against. And if we don’t support thier pie in the sky schemes then we are standing in the way of progress. Throwing money at the problem isn’t the solutiona and the Dems are very short on ideas.
Take this to the next Democratic meeting: You guys have to be FOR something to be relevant.
And by the way if you are under 55, the Bush S.S. plan is a great idea. Why would anyone actually want to give the govt. more of their money? That’s just beyond me.
[/quote]
HILARIOUS! How is getting less money from Bush’s plan better than the more money from the current plan? Even if the economy by some MIRACLE slows to 1.8 percent of growth that would lead to s.s. going “bankrupt”(Hilarious too!) The 70 percent of the benefits it would pay out would still be more than the privatized plan! (Tip for HEDO: I don’t know if you invest, I do, but stocks don’t do so good if the economy grows at 1.8 percent, in fact stocks would be the WORST place to have any money). If you assume that the economy grows more than 1.8 percent then BOY is S.S. flush with tons of cash!
And a reminder you’re a member of the party against not for. Liberal=everything you have. Conservative=voted against everything you have.
Also remember your philosophy of conservatism was “debunked” at the end of the Civil War…Remember Lincoln? And the huge increase in the role and power of federal govt., and all those amendments, because ya just can’t trust those conservative states with their “state rights” because when you do the little guy gets stepped on, you know like when they still tried to get away with Jim Crow laws? And if you want government to spend less money why would you ever, ever vote for conservatives?
Inform yourself if you like: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/hist.html
but since 1962 total govt. spending avg.pct. increase:
dems:6.96 percent repubs:7.57
non-defense spending:
dems:8.34 percent repubs:10.08
not exactly what the right likes to claim huh? It’s almost like their lying to you to make you think bad things about liberals, weird. (oh wait! That’s what they do all the time!)
how about Non-defense Federal
Government Employees:
1962-2001
dems: 16 percent of total (59,000)
repubs: 84 percent of total (310,000)
It’s not even close. Gee, so the party of “big government” is the Republican party? Ahh hedo, you were an easy one for conservative to have, did you ever challenge any of their claims, or did you drink the whole glass of kool-aid?
Hedo you’re too easy!
