Third Party & Independents Archives

Maybe if he danced for them???

Of course Obama’s Justice Department dropped the Federal charges.

No surprise not many people heard that. The liberal media buried the story.

Should the Gitmo detainee terrorists be tried in NYC?

B9….your question has exactly WHAT to do with the thread?

I heard it, C&J. I heard it a number of days ago.

I told my father how, after 6 years, 2 presidents, and 4 Attorneys General, the charges are dropped!

He hadn’t heard of this. He called it a “whitewash” when I told him… whatever that means? He assumes Tom Delay is guilty of something. Taking six years to say he isn’t is a “whitewash”!

I look at it as an exposure of the way the Democratics play the game. Acuse an enemy of something, make them resign, and print the retraction on page 13023 of the newspaper 6 years later!

Stand on the steps and ask your acusers to help you regain your reputation, Tom Delay! Nixon did, you can too!

Maybe David R. Remer wants to see another prisoner in Texas.

He may think the federal government is too leanient on Repubican politicians. He may think Texas would be a good place to find a Republican politician guilty.

David R. Remer!

Remember that silver haired chick from Texas that said, “It’s the Economy! Stupid!”

?

Well, it might appear obvious from several comments above, that it probably is hard to find an unbiased and fair set of jurors anywhere in America today. But, the sample size here is just too small and unrepresentative to make such a claim.

Polling is showing Americans are more divided across more issues today than ever before in polling history. That fact will have an impact on our judicial system, justice system, and juries.

David R. Remer!

What part of “no charges filed” did you miss?

After six years, you must still make an issue?

Get a grip, David R. Remer.

As usual, I suspect a conspiracy in that the D’s and R’s all expect to be in Delay’s shoes at some point in their political history and so they get together in a little darkened room and agree to not go too hard on politicians who get upside down with the law. A conspiracy in one sentence! Who can top that?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Weary, What part of “goes to trial” did you not understand?

http://www.news8austin.com/content/top_stories/273642/tom-delay-to-face-trial-in-travis-county-oct—26

Not sure I understand the point of this article.

Delay’s attorney asked for change of venue pre-trial. The judge said no.

Are you upset that Delay’s counsel made the motion in the first place? What consel in a high profile case doesn’t? It’s their job to get him the best deal possible, and moving it out of Austin and in to his old district would be to his advantage. It’s the prosecutor’s job to get a conviction, so arranging the trial in Austin in te first place gives him the best chance. It’s the judge’s job to weigh the rights of the State against the rights of the accused, and looks like he’s done that (probably to your satisfaction).

What am I missing?

George, the politicization of the judicial process.

George, the politicization of the judicial process.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2010 03

Amen to that. Conservatives have been warning about this very thing for years.

No surprise not many people heard that. The liberal media buried the story. Sorry C&J but I heard it the day it was announced on now HOLD ON…MSNBC.

For some partisans, a politicians rhetoric is far more important that his character or his morals. Traficant’s fan club is threatening to sue to get him on the ballot.

David, don’t you mean, politicized more that it already is?

There is a person in this country that has been convicted of at least two felonies resulting in deaths, and numerous misdemeanors without spending one day in jail because that person has great wealth and influence.

That person is British Petroleum.

The Dems can hang their hats on these realities and accomplishments: Big Unemployment, Big National Debt, Big Nightmare HC Legislation (crammed and rammed), Big Financial Reform (except Fannie & Freddie are exempt; Where’s Fannie Where’s Freddie), Big, Bloated Benevolent Brother (libs love Big Central Power), Big Uptick in Public Sector Jobs, Big Downturn in Private Sector Jobs (demononize business Big and Small, demonize them all!), Big Trouble with ‘Illegal’ Immigration Issue, Big Trouble with the Mosque Location (my, lib-lefts suddenly love religion)… their accomplishments are endless.

Smart money is placing bets on the right side of the table come November…. hope and change will arrive with the cool winds of autumn…. a beautiful, red autumn!

The sad part is that Tom Delay mostly screwed the many conservative groups he supposedly cheered for. Some have gotten that, many haven’t

David,

Have you noticed that you attempted to adress an issue, from an ondependent point of view (maybe I’m the only one who recognizes the color green)that effects us all (Americans) and the GOP apologists jump on you like you were wearing a Keith Olbermann for President tee-shirt?
Our justice system has already been highjacked by wealth and influence, now political affiliation?

For any and all who read Davis’s article. He’s not attacking Delay the Republican, even if he is a low life scum bag. He’s bringing up serious concerns about our judicial system.
Re-read the article and then close your eyes and pretend it’s not the beloved symbol of Republiucan politics Tom Delay but pretend it’s Nancy Pelosi.
Feel the outrage now?
Good.

Yes, the judge should deny a change the venue for Delay, unless there is evidence of irrational and unjustified prejudice.

The situation gives new meaning to the term “Justice Delayed”? (or denied)?

But, even if a Congress person is ever convicted of a crime, they may still get a pardon.

And they can still receive their cu$hy pensions, as did/will these Congress persons:

Democrats:

• (D) Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was sent to prison on charges of keeping “ghost” employees on his payroll and embezzling public funds to buy gifts for friends and family. He was pardoned by Bill Clinton, and was still able to keep his $126,000 annual federal pension. Cha Ching!
  
• (D) Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., convicted on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.
  
• (D) John M. Murphy
  
• (D) Austin J. Murphy
  
• (D) Carroll Hubbard Jr.
  
• (D) Mario Biaggi
  
• (D) Walter E. Fauntroy
  
• (D) Mary Rose Oakar
  
• (D) Nicholas Mavroules
  
• (D) Joseph P. Kolter
  
• (D) Lawrence J. Smith
  
• (D) Frederick W. Richmond
  
• (D) Albert G. Bustamante
  
• (D) Michael J. Myers
  
• (D) Carl C. Perkins
  
• (D) Rep. James A. Traficant Jr., D-Ohio, was ousted from Congress after being convicted in 2002 for taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering and forcing aides to perform chores on his farm. He is serving an eight-year prison term and continues to receive his $40,000-a-year taxpayer-funded federal pension.
  
• (D) Possibly, Charlie Rangel ?
  
• (D) Possibly, Maxine Waters?


Republicans:

• (R) Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., resigned in November 2005 after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors and underreporting his income for 2004. He reportedly used his ill-gotten gains to buy a yacht, a Rolls Royce and a mansion in a Washington suburb. Mr. Cunningham started serving an eight-year prison sentence in March 2006 and still collects a combined $64,000-a-year congressional and military pension.
  
• (R) David Durenberger
  
• (R) John G. Rowland
  
• (R) Donald E. Lukens
  
• (R) Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio, was convicted last year of doing illegal favors for a lobbyist in return for gifts, expensive meals, skybox sports tickets and luxury travel that included a golf vacation to Scotland. When he turns 62 in nine years and becomes eligible, he will receive a $33,000 annual federal pension.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Dan, and your list doesn’t include many who stuff their pockets and get out when they are found out, before the heat can be turned up. People like Chris Dodd and Dennis Hastert. In the last year, Dodd has received more than a hundred thousand in political contributions, primarily from hedge fund managers, and he isn’t even running for reelection. But he did manage to write a financial reform bill that left a certain group virtually untouched, on his way out the door.

Andre’,

You can lead the horse to water, but, you can’t make it drink. Thank you for attempting to point out the obvious to those whose shades block it out. But, unless they remove their shades, such attempts are in vain. Reality is just too scary a prospect for many. They might actually have to do something with their own life in response to it.

d.a.n,

I have believed for a very long time, that a white collar crime that violates the rights of the citizenry, should be punishable far more stringently than the crime of a blue collar person against one, or a couple of individuals. But, that would require a voting population that sought to hold their representatives accountable. We aren’t there, yet.

jlw,

Dodd is an excellent example of many who have chosen to exit elected politics - but, you know, a part of the reason is this growing call by independents for accountability and responsibility by elected officials. And that is a very, very positive sign.

Patsy, you sure are a patsy for propaganda. Republicans doubled the national debt in 8 years, not Democrats. Good to have one of the extremist crazies represented here, completely clueless where reality and objectivity is concerned.

DRR, Who had control of the purse in 2006, it sure were’nt Republicans.

Who had control of the purse in 2006, it sure were’nt Republicans. Ever heard of a little power the pres has called veto?

Jeff Did you ever hear of OVERRIDE.

MAG, who had the veto power over budgets from 2001 to 2009? It sure wasn’t Democrats.

MAG, before an override can even be attempted, there has to be a veto. NO VETO was forthcoming from Republicans.

DRR Who took over congress in 2006 Democrats and more so in 2008. Unless the Democrats were Happy with everything Bush did.

MAG, your ignorance is overwhelming. Democrats took over the House in 2006. The Senate and presidency in 2008, well after the Great Recession was underway under a Republican president and Republican controlled Congress’ from 2001 to 2008. Democrats didn’t get control of Congress until 2009, and then only briefly, despite their having a majority. At the start of the 111th Congress, the Democrats held 56 seats in the Senate, with the two independents continuing to caucus with the Democrats for a total of 58. With 60 votes required to break a filibuster, Democrats still did not have control of the Senate.

No bill proposed in the House can become law until the Senate confirms such legislation and the President assents. The filibuster prevents a majority party in the Senate with less than 60 seats from controlling the Senate outcomes on legislation. Republicans held control of much of the the Senate agenda and presidency until 2008. Ergo, Republicans controlled legislation until 2009, long after the The Great Recession was underway in 2007, and was obviously on its way in 2006, as I wrote about here at WB in 2006.

Your comments reflect a laziness to research before opining, ignorance of the most basic of American civics education, and the wearing of blinders to all empirical evidence which doesn’t support your prejudices and biases. Which makes you a true American partisan. You are in large but, waning company. Enjoy it while you can. Laziness and ignorance come with an enormous eventual price.

So, why do neither eliminate the filibuster?

d.a.n, I should think the answer is rather obvious. Both parties know their history of musical chairs as the minority party in the Senate, and neither party wishes to experience being the minority party absent the filibuster.

There are proponents for ending the filibuster or revising it to a simple majority requirement to override one. But, such proponents are not numerous. Those in power will not relinquish potential power voluntarily, and the filibuster constitutes minority power, and both partys of the duopoly are acutely aware that minority status in the Senate is in their future.

Kind of a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face, if you ask me. But, then, power corrupts reason as power grows, for all but those with inordinate integrity, a rare trait to be found in politics, in the first place.

Yeah, it is pretty obvious.

Neither want to eliminate because they know they’re BOTH simply takin’ turns.

Voters and the nation be damned!

But the voters allow it.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.