The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Thursday, October 20, 2005

No perp walk and a big smile

Given the likelihood that the Delay indictment was purely political, there were 3 things the Dems wanted to get from it, but have to skulk away with only one and that one is likely temporary. The Dems wanted 1) to force him to step down from his very effective leadership due to the GOP only self imposed rule to do so when indicted 2) a mug shot 3) video of a perp walk.

They only really have forcing him to step down. He foiled their plans by exercising his legal Texas right to appear in the location of his choice. By willingly appearing in a more sympathetic location he was able to avoid the perp walk altogether. His mug shot will hardly be used in campaigns to paint him as a miserable criminal. Delay is smiling from ear to ear proudly displaying his House of Representatives security pin.

I am sure Dems across the country feel robbed and dissatisfied at this turn of events. I am sure they will feel even more robbed when Delay is aquitted for admitted lack of evidence. If the judge was not a liberal known to be a contributor to moveon.org, he would have already dismissed the charges. Oh, well I guess we will have to be satisfied with a verdict of not guilty.

posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 10:57 PM  

11 Comments:

  • At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    One could gather that you think that if DeLay is found guilty, that it will be a wrong verdict from a full grand jury of regular Texans who must be mindless Democratic dupes, and that DeLay's actions around money laundering and misuse of funds are acceptable to you. I could extrapolate that you don't feel it's wrong that undercover government agents and agencies whose sole purpose is to protect America from unconventional weapons are exposed and all their contacts and work is compromised, thus endangering our country and its citizens. I'm guessing you think that lying about a blowjob to the American public and getting a dress dirty is a far more egregioius crime than lying to the American public about WMDs and getting several thousand American GIs killed and maimed.

    But I don't expect you to make any reply, because as you've said before, you're too busy to respond to anything you don't have an interest in.

    It's unfortunate that you don't seem to have the time for or an interest in the principles of what made this a great country - a commitment to fairness, justice, the rule of law, promoting the general welfare, the upliftment of humanity.

    You say you have an interest in "faith" and I assume that to mean Christian faith. I don't see how any of the positions you posit and the people you support are good examples of or reflective in any way of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus would say that there is only one passenger compartment of your proposed "class" train. Go argue your point with Him.

    "- I must answer specific points you make instead of choosing which I think are worth the effort to answer. Hey, if I don't answer a point because I don't think it worth my time and you want to get some buzz by claiming victory - go for it. I have said before, my time is limited and I spend it first answering things that interest me. If there is time left after that I might answer other things. This is no different than how thousands of other bloggers operate."

    It's too bad you don't think it worth your time to defend and back up what you say. Who needs to have any explanation for anything they say?

    Go make your money and do what you can to keep it all to yourself and your family. Don't worry about your actions repercussions for future generations. Continue to support government corruption, fiscal irresponsibility and the politics of torture and vindictiveness. Good luck pleading your case with Saint Peter at the end.

    Money is needed in any economy but in the end times people would be more concerned about making money than what kind of relationships they have with each other. This attitude of ours will cause offense, and wars will be fought over it until Jesus comes to restore the Law and His Way among men. ( II Tim. 3:2).

     

  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    bkln, thanks for the post here. I will respond to the Delay answer now and get to the others as soon as I can.

    In your reponse you begin with "One could gather that you think that if DeLay is found guilty" and then argue a lot against me and how I would respond to that. First, I don't think he will be found guilty. If he is found guilty I will look at the evidence presented as Earle has not yet made his case public. From the whiff of evidence presented so far one can only conclude that it is possible Delay committed a crime. Not enough to proclaim him guilty.

    As in the Texas DWI Andy put on his site, there was a breathalyzer result that led to his arrest. That is enough for me to conclude that he will likely be found guilty.

    In Delay's case I don't have the benefit of that, so I presume innocence.

    Come back, please. My responses will have to be lengthy but I will try.

     

  • At 8:31 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    bkln,

    ok here is a little more: first, I am going to withhold most comments on the Plame comment until after announcements. We still don't even know if she was covert at the time, nor if any who discussed her role in selecting Joe Wilson (her husband) for the trip to Niger knew of her status.

    I like how you minimized Clinton's perjury. It will be interesting how you and other liberals view perjury if Rove or Libby slipped up and did so during their testimony.

    You liberals still claim Bush of lying about WMD when he was acting on the intelligence provided by Clinton appointees. The intel of other countries also pointed to the same conclusion, so I don't see where the lie part comes in. It will also be interesting to see if the new developments in Syria lead to the exposure that the WMD went to Syria before the attack.

    There is a difference between backing up what I say and backing up what I say to your satisfaction. However, I will try to answer more.

    Interesting how you took only one item from II Tim 3 to make a point. You also added to what is in II Tim 3:2. Is that your wording added or from somewhere else? There is a lot more there you passed over. Your comment about Jesus and my 3 car economy analogy does not hold with the Bible. Jesus said we would always have poor people. Jesus was also supported by well to do people of His time who believed in His ministry. The bible does criticize the love of money yet also speaks well of those who did acquire some wealth. (One example was Lydia a seller of purple, and another Philemon) The book of proverbs also draws a strong cause/effect between hard work and obtaining wealth and does not have a stigma attached to the wealth, but are actually positive. I am both well versed in my faith and what God expects of us. Lifting verses out of context would therefore be quite a fruitless exercise.

    I will also make it clear I do not make a lot of money. Above average, but not extreme. And you know from my post at Andy's site I don't keep it all, but where I am anonymous there I am less so here so I won't discuss that in detail here.

    Finally, I am not sure why you are so vindictive toward me. Do as you like but it is not warranted. As far as claiming I support corruption here are my comments:

    - I support the philosophy of government I think if enacted is best for all people
    - I support the philosophy more than the people as there are only a few truly bright lights worth supporting personally
    - I do not support governmental or corporate corruption and wrong doing. My support is for the pure philosophy.
    - No philosophy is ever purely enacted. There are bad apples at every level of every philosophy
    - The bad actions of those claiming to espouse my philosophy do not invalidate my philosophy.
    - The corruption you mention for the most part falls into one of these categories: unproven, exaggerated, similar to the actions on the other side.

     

  • At 2:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    STANDS - SORRY FOR THE CAPS, NOT INTENDING TO SHOUT, BUT JUST SO IT IS EASY TO DIFFERENTIATE WHERE I HAVE PARSED YOUR COMMENTS. HOPE THIS HELPS.

    all_i_can_stands
    said...
    bkln, thanks for the post here. I will respond to the Delay answer now and get to the others as soon as I can.

    In your reponse you begin with "One could gather that you think that if DeLay is found guilty" and then argue a lot against me and how I would respond to that. First, I don't think he will be found guilty. If he is found guilty I will look at the evidence presented as Earle has not yet made his case public. From the whiff of evidence presented so far one can only conclude that it is possible Delay committed a crime. Not enough to proclaim him guilty.
    >>>> YOUR ORIGINAL POST HAS A RATHER SMUG TONE TO IT, REFERRING TO "SKULKING" AND "FEELING ROBBED" AND "OH WELL I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO BE SATISFIED WITH A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY." THAT IS WHY I MADE THE COMMENTS I DID REGARDING WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS MIGHT BE. I APOLOGIZE FOR PROJECTING TOO MUCH, BUT YOU GAVE ME VERY LITTLE TO GO ON OTHER THAN YOUR SNIPPY TONE. THERE SEEMS TO BE LITTLE HUMILITY IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST, BUT RATHER A RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION. HUMILITY IS A VALUE HELD IN VERY HIGH ESTEEM BY JESUS, SO WHY NOT PRACTICE IT? THE THREE CHARGES ARE (1) VIOLATING STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW (2) MONEY LAUNDERING AND (3) CONSPIRACY TO LAUNDER MONEY. THESE ARE NOT LIGHT CHARGES OR CRIMES. REMEMBER THAT THE GRAND JURY INDICTED HIM, NOT RONNIE EARLE. I DO NOT PROCLAIM DELAY GUILTY, BUT I DO RESPECT THE INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY OF DELAY'S TEXAS CITIZENS WHO CAME TO THEIR CONCLUSION UNANIMOUSLY FROM EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTOR RONNIE EARLE, WHO HAS BROUGHT MORE INDICTMENTS AGAINST DEMOCRATS THAN HE HAS REPUBLICANS (IN HIS 27 YEAR CAREER, EARLE HAS INDICTED 15 ELECTED OFFICIALS - 12 OF THEM ARE DEMOCRATS > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-earle29sep29,0,7086285.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

    As in the Texas DWI Andy put on his site, there was a breathalyzer result that led to his arrest. That is enough for me to conclude that he will likely be found guilty.
    >>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS COMMENT.

    In Delay's case I don't have the benefit of that, so I presume innocence.

    Come back, please. My responses will have to be lengthy but I will try.
    4:36 PM

    all_i_can_stands
    said...
    bkln,

    ok here is a little more: first, I am going to withhold most comments on the Plame comment until after announcements. We still don't even know if she was covert at the time, nor if any who discussed her role in selecting Joe Wilson (her husband) for the trip to Niger knew of her status.
    >>>> VALERIE PLAME WAS A NON-OFFICIAL COVER (NOC) OPERATIVE. REGARDLESS, THE FRONT COMPANY (BREWSTER JENNINGS AND ASSOCIATES) WAS USED BY OTHER CIA OFFICERS WHOSE WORK AND CONTACTS COULD NOW BE AT RISK. SUCH IS THE NATURE OF UNDERCOVER CIA WORK THAT WE WILL LIKELY NEVER KNOW THESE DETAILS. THIS PHOTO (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/856/1675/1600/ciastars.jpg) SHOWS THE MEMORIAL FOR THOSE UNDERCOVER CIA OPERATIVES WHOSE NAMES WILL NEVER BE KNOWN WHO HAVE DIED IN THE LINE OF SERVICE. BLOWING THE COVER OF BREWSTER JENNINGS AND VALERIE PLAME ENDANGERS EVERYONE AND EVERY OPERATION EVER ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. ASK GEORGE H. W. BUSH, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR. AS TO THE SECOND POINT, VALERIE PLAME HAD NO AUTHORITY TO SELECT WILSON FOR THE NIGER TRIP. IF SHE SUGGESTED HIM, WHAT DOES THAT MATTER? HE WAS A FORMER EMBASSADOR TO AFRICA AND IRAQ, AND WELL VERSED IN WMD ISSUES. HE WAS HIGHLY REGARDED IN THE FIRST BUSH WHITE HOUSE AND WAS WELL QUALIFIED REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING PLAME HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT. WHAT MATTERS MOST IS THAT HIS ASSESSMENT WAS IGNORED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

    I like how you minimized Clinton's perjury. It will be interesting how you and other liberals view perjury if Rove or Libby slipped up and did so during their testimony.
    >>> PERJURY IS A CRIME. NO DOUBT AND NO ARGUMENT. WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE IS THE PERJURY OF SCALE. SEXUAL IMPROPRIETY IN THE WHITE HOUSE VERSUS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQI DEAD, THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS DEAD AND MAIMED, AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS GONE FROM AMERICA'S BANK ACCOUNT WITH NO END IN SIGHT. CAN YOU REALLY SERIOUSLY SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE AND CONSEQUENCE?

    You liberals still claim Bush of lying about WMD when he was acting on the intelligence provided by Clinton appointees. The intel of other countries also pointed to the same conclusion, so I don't see where the lie part comes in. It will also be interesting to see if the new developments in Syria lead to the exposure that the WMD went to Syria before the attack.
    >>> YOU'RE SUGGESTING CLINTON APPOINTEES WERE STILL IN CHARGE OF INTELLIGENCE IN 2003, A FULL TWO YEARS AFTER CLINTON LEFT OFFICE? BUSH WOULD NEVER ALLOW SUCH A THING AND YOU KNOW IT. I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CAN NAME ANY OF THESE APPOINTEES, CAN YOU? BY THIS LOGIC, THE OKLAHOMA CITY AND 1993 WTC BOMBING WERE AT MINIMUM THE FAULT OF BUSH SENIOR. THAT'S LUDICROUS. EXACTLY WHEN IS IT THAT GEORGE W. BUSH BECOMES RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON HIS WATCH? BY YOUR COMMENT, I AM GUESSING HE WILL NEVER BE RESPONSIBLE, DESPITE HAVING ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IN REPUBLICAN HANDS SINCE THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE. READ THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm). LISTEN TO REPUBLICAN COLIN POWELL'S CHIEF OF STAFF (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20051020-124752-8308r.htm). JOHN BOLTON IS HARDLY A CLINTON APPOINTEE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7896-2005Apr21.html). RESEARCH THE WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP AND THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. HERE'S SOME HELP (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm) AND REALLY, WASN'T JESUS THE PENULTIMATE BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL?

    There is a difference between backing up what I say and backing up what I say to your satisfaction. However, I will try to answer more.

    Interesting how you took only one item from II Tim 3 to make a point. You also added to what is in II Tim 3:2. Is that your wording added or from somewhere else? There is a lot more there you passed over. Your comment about Jesus and my 3 car economy analogy does not hold with the Bible. Jesus said we would always have poor people.
    >>>> ARE WE NOT ALL CHILDREN OF GOD, EQUAL BEFORE HIS EYES, REGARDLESS OF WEALTH OR POSITION? WE ARE ALL IN ONE CAR ACCORDING TO HIM.

    Jesus was also supported by well to do people of His time who believed in His ministry. The bible does criticize the love of money yet also speaks well of those who did acquire some wealth. (One example was Lydia a seller of purple, and another Philemon) The book of proverbs also draws a strong cause/effect between hard work and obtaining wealth and does not have a stigma attached to the wealth, but are actually positive. I am both well versed in my faith and what God expects of us. Lifting verses out of context would therefore be quite a fruitless exercise.
    >>>> WEALTH AND THE ACQUISITION OF WEALTH IS NOT IN ITSELF A BAD THING, BUT MUCH OF THE WAY THAT WEALTH IS ACQUIRED IN MODERN SOCIETY WOULD GREATLY DISAPPOINT JESUS. IN AMERICA, WE PERSECUTE "ILLEGALS" ONLY WHEN THEY ARE NOT OUT PICKING THE MAJORITY OF THE FOOD THAT WE EAT AT OUR TABLES, FOR WHICH WE PAY THEM MERE PENNIES. A GOOD CHRISTIAN MAN WILL WORK 50 HOURS EVERY WEEK TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY, UNTIL THE COMPANY (DELHI MOTOR PARTS, FOR EXAMPLE) GOES BANKRUPT, AFTER THE TOP EXECUTIVES HAVE RAIDED HIS PENSION AND HEALTHCARE ACCOUNT. WILL YOU INSIST THAT I KEEP ON LISTING EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE TO SHOW THAT THE CURRENT CORPORATE MENTALITY IS BY AND LARGE A MORALLY AND ETHICALLY BANKRUPT INSTITUTION? I LIFT NO VERSE OUT OF CONTEXT, BECAUSE EVERY VERSE IS A LESSON UNTO ITSELF. OR PERHAPS MATTHEW 5:19 IS WRONG?

    I will also make it clear I do not make a lot of money. Above average, but not extreme. And you know from my post at Andy's site I don't keep it all, but where I am anonymous there I am less so here so I won't discuss that in detail here.

    Finally, I am not sure why you are so vindictive toward me. Do as you like but it is not warranted.
    >>>>> I HONESTLY ONLY WANT THE BEST FOR ALL HUMANKIND. I AM CONFRONTATIONAL WITH YOU BECAUSE GOD EXPECTS YOU TO BE HONEST WITH HIM, YOURSELF AND YOUR FELLOW MAN. YOU RESIST GIVING ANY SUBSTANTIATING FACTS FOR YOUR STATEMENTS BEYOND "BECAUSE I SAY/THINK SO" AND SEEM UNWILLING TO CHALLENGE INFORMATION FROM SOURCES LIKE LIMBAUGH, THE CATO INSTITUTE, THE WHITE HOUSE, ETC, SERVING AS THEIR UNCRITICAL PROXY. PEOPLE ARE DYING DAILY IN AMERICA, IRAQ AND ALL OVER THE WORLD AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MUCH OF WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE SAYING AND DOING. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST ME ON THIS. THE FACTS ARE DOCUMENTED EVERYWHERE.

    As far as claiming I support corruption here are my comments:

    - I support the philosophy of government I think if enacted is best for all people
    SO DO I. WHAT'S YOUR PHILOSOPHY?
    - I support the philosophy more than the people as there are only a few truly bright lights worth supporting personally
    SO WHO DO YOU SUPPORT? WHO DO YOU NOT SUPPORT?
    - I do not support governmental or corporate corruption and wrong doing. My support is for the pure philosophy.
    GLAD TO HEAR YOU FEEL THAT WAY. BUT WILL YOU HONOR DECISIONS OF COURTS AND JURIES WHO PROSECUTE THOSE YOU SUPPORT?
    - No philosophy is ever purely enacted. There are bad apples at every level of every philosophy
    AGREED
    - The bad actions of those claiming to espouse my philosophy do not invalidate my philosophy.
    AGREED AGAIN, BUT THEN HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THOSE BAD APPLES?
    - The corruption you mention for the most part falls into one of these categories: unproven, exaggerated, similar to the actions on the other side.
    AND WHAT OF PROVEN CORRUPTION? OR CORRUPTION THAT IS FOUND TO BE NOT AT ALL EXAGGERATED, BUT EVEN UNDERESTIMATED? A PHILOSOPHY OF "ASPIRE TO NO BETTER THAN THE OTHER SIDE" IS VIGILANTE JUSTICE WAITING TO BE DOLED OUT ON WHOEVER GETS IN THE WAY. HARDLY A WORTHY ASPIRATION FOR A GOOD CHRISTIAN. CHECK AGAIN TO MATTHEW FOR THE INSIGHT THERE.

     

  • At 3:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I realize that the links didn't post right.

    I will post them correctly tomorrow.

     

  • At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The reformatted links, as promised.

    Let's start with a meditation on Honesty, citing Proverbs 6:16,17,19

    Ronnie Earle has indicted 15 elected officials in his 27-year career, 12 of which are Democrats Hardly the mark of partisanship in favor of Democrats.

    New judge in DeLay case a Republican who has donated to Republican groups Judge Perkins' $3400 to Democrat causes versus Judge Schraub's $5400 to Republican causes. Who should be considered more actively partisan? What this motion for a new judge means is if a judge had contributed to Crime Stoppers, that judge could not hear a burglary case. Is this really justice being served?

    Photo of CIA memorial wall for fallen undercover operatives - those dead Americans whose names can never be known so that their work and their contacts will remain protected

    Downing Street memo - the documented 2002 meeting between Blair and Bush officials to fix intelligence to justify invasion of Iraq

    Bush deciding to attack Iraq as early as 2001 yet was telling America in 2002 that there was no decision to invade Iraq

    Col. Wilkerson, Republican General Colin Powell's chief of staff statements on Iraq policy

    General Colin Powell on his pre-war speech before the United Nations

    John Bolton is hardly a Clinton appointee

    Project for a New America Century and it's list of signatories including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Dan Quayle, Elliot Abrams, and others

    NSA archives on Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein

    You cannot honestly suggest that Abu Ghraib is an unproven or exaggerated allegation.

    Finally, I am not sure why you are so vindictive toward me. Do as you like but it is not warranted.
    >>>>> I HONESTLY ONLY WANT THE BEST FOR ALL HUMANKIND. I AM CONFRONTATIONAL WITH YOU BECAUSE GOD EXPECTS YOU TO BE HONEST WITH HIM, YOURSELF AND YOUR FELLOW MAN. YOU RESIST GIVING ANY SUBSTANTIATING FACTS FOR YOUR STATEMENTS BEYOND "BECAUSE I SAY/THINK SO" AND SEEM UNWILLING TO CHALLENGE INFORMATION FROM SOURCES LIKE LIMBAUGH, THE CATO INSTITUTE, THE WHITE HOUSE, ETC, SERVING AS THEIR UNCRITICAL PROXY. PEOPLE ARE DYING DAILY IN AMERICA, IRAQ AND ALL OVER THE WORLD AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MUCH OF WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE SAYING AND DOING. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST ME ON THIS. THE FACTS ARE DOCUMENTED EVERYWHERE.

    Stands, we are all free to have our beliefs, but making baseless statements like "we have a safety net for the poor in the US" and "Bush was acting on intelligence provided by Clinton appointees" without being able to back it up with documented fact is irresponsible and misleading - or as I had challenged you on previously - it's disingenuous. Statements without an actual basis in reality can literally hurt people.

    Do you really believe that years of weapons inspections, compounded with the US and British satellite network in the many months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq could have totally missed WMDs being shipped to Syria? Doesn't that argument seem like grasping at straws now that things are going terribly bad for the Bush White House? It's as disingenuous of a statement as Clinton's about "depends what the meaning of 'is' is."

    I am not a partisan. I abhor corruption on all fronts. That is why I am passionate here - what you consider to be vindictiveness towards you. Our country and our world cannot afford corruption, incompetence and abuse of power any longer. I do not apologize for Clinton's perjury. Perjurers should be punished. He lied, and was impeached for it. I think that was an extreme action considering it was truly about an issue that is between a husband and wife, but that's done and over now. Bringing up Clinton here would be like me wanting to bring up Nixon and Watergate. Clinton's perjury did not result in thousands of deaths and overwhelming budget deficits. Do you have a sense of the actual dollar cost of the war in Iraq let alone the cost of human lives? His perjury did not result in the destruction of a time and cost-intensive undercover CIA operation whose sole purpose was to protect America from unconventional weapons. Clinton's perjury was to cover up and hide a sexual indiscretion from his wife. Rove/Libby/Cheney/whoever's perjury was to cover up and hide from the American people the lack of credible intelligence to support their stated WMD cause for war with Iraq. Do you truly not see a difference in scale between these?

     

  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    bkln, wow it would take hours to make full responses. I may have to take it in bites.

    In answer to points on my faith
    First, though I try I am not a perfect Christian, nor do I claim to be. If I post in a non-humble or cocky way it is more my personality than what I would consider true pride. I think you would need to know me better personally before judging about that. I hardly think it is a valid point of argument to make judgements of inconsistency between what I say and my faith. Other than the one word of 'faith' in my profile, I don't bring that to this forum as that is not the direction I have chosen for this blog. I will respond to other's comments on it but usually don't bring it up myself. As I don't make claims here about my faith and you state nothing of your own AND we don't know each other personally to see if we are faithful to what we claim to believe I don't consider that valid. Do as you wish, though.

    Tom Delay
    My 'snippy' tone in my Delay comments is in response to what I see as a "pack of jackals" response to his indictment. Basically there is no evidence presented yet and coupled with Earle's actions there is a high likelihood this is partisan driven. Here are the points:

    - The seriousness of a grand jury indictment argument loses all efectiveness when we find that at least one grand jury refused to indict on current charges,then indicted on a law that did not exist at the time, then the next GJ is rushed into indicting hours after they are sworn in.
    - Earle was definitely GJ shopping
    - What is the deal with Earle and the documentary filming?
    - Earle has a track record of baseless indictments with the Hutchison indictment that was thrown out.
    - The number of democrats indicted argument does not hold water at face value. What was the evidence in those cases. Could have been all "smoking gun" indictments. The only thing those numbers might show is that in that area there is more corruption on the Democrats than the Republicans.

    The DWI comment
    Andy had a post about a GOP Texas representative who was charged with drunk driving. My comment there was that the breathalyzer is enough evidence for me BEFORE conviction to call him a dog. With Delay the evidence either is not there or is not public. Among what evidence is there in the Delay case there is far more pointing to this being polictical than proof of criminal activity on Delay's part.

    More on a separate post.

     

  • At 1:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Cocky and snippy posts on a poli-philoso-blog are expected, as you've seen me and everyone else make them too. I would hope that you don't want to overemphasize my comments on humility as a Christian value versus true pride. It was one sentence in a long paragraph. Personality makes a good blog, inspires debate and all that good stuff.

    That said, allow me this observation.

    Your first stated interest is "faith" and your introduction begins "I enjoy life, have a strong faith and family base." You told me you are well versed in your faith and what God expects of us. You are probably one of few professed Christians who knows that 2 Timothy even exists. I realize you are not running a religious or faith-focused blog. But those who claim strong Christian faith yet don't want to be held to consistency between what they believe/say/do and that faith and its associated values, that is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. This is why I brought up Proverbs 6 regarding honesty. It's where the terms "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" come from.

    Believe me, I have no desire for this to devolve into a battle over faith and values, but I cannot understand how self-proclaimed people of faith aren't outraged at political corruption that results in needless poverty and death. I don't understand how a sort of "see no evil" mentality exists when it comes to the self-annointed Party of Christian values - that Republican constituents openly mocked every wounded GI from every war with purple sparkly band-aids during wartime while claiming they and they alone support the troops. I could go on and on.

    It's painful and it's shameful, and I would like to find a conservative who is willing to take their faith and its values seriously all the time - consistently - and to bring those primary values of humanity to their deeds and words and actions not only when it's expedient.

    On to DeLay and Earle
    You say a grand jury refused to indict DeLay on charges? What grand jury refused to indict?
    Earle and the documentary? This is what I found. Seems convenient that the DeLay people don't recall being asked. Who knows?
    And really - you think that a 27-year history of indictments against 4 times as many Democrats as Republicans shows nothing as to whether or not the charge against Democrat Earle as a "partisan fanatic" is a complete farce? Are you suggesting that Tom DeLay is the only honest person here? That this ONLY shows that there's more corruption on the part of Democrats than Republicans in Texas? Don't you think you're being intellectually dishonest here? Is this to mean that you wouldn't be calling him a politically motivated partisan if he had indicted 4 times as many Republicans as Democrats? C'mon now. Can't we have SOME honesty here?

     

  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    bkln,

    A couple of things. First, I am not sure if you saw but I did concede a point on Andy's blog concerning the estate tax. After researching your link and others I found, I determined I misunderstood a few points about it and therefore withdrew my points on that. My philosophy is not about making the rich richer just to do so. I am protective of an environment that rewards hard work and good choices, and does not reward less than that. My new understanding of the estate tax makes it a non-issue with me whether is stays or goes.

    what grand jury refused to indict

    Here is a link about the case right after Earle dropped the charges of the first indictment because the law did not exist at the time and he needed new charges:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401637.html

    Below is part of that story showing my point about the 'first' grand jury refusing to indict, etc.:

    'Earle said in the statement that "issues have arisen regarding that [first] indictment that will be argued in court and resolved by a judge." He also disclosed that Monday's money laundering charge was initially brought before yet another grand jury without success last week.

    This third grand jury "declined to indict on the last day of its regular term," Earle said. Then his office acquired "additional information" over the weekend and succeeded in getting the indictment on Monday. There is no law in Texas barring prosecutors from presenting a case to different grand juries, DeGuerin explained.'

    I am at a point with the Delay case that I don't think there is much to discuss until Earle actually presents some evidence. I have not seen any yet.


    Faith

    I thought the blog profile was simply to tell a little bit about yourself so people can get an idea who you were. I did not put it there to make any claims. Just info so people can get an idea about what make me tick.

    Need to explore some of those links you gave to respond further. Will be back. In parting, at one point you asked what my philosophy is: wow that would take a book but I'll try.

     

  • At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I noticed your retraction on the estate tax issue on Andy's blog and here. I wish that I could say that such sincerity is a regularity among those espousing conservatism, but unfortunately it is not. I salute you.

    Let me ask you further though about your close on the estate tax question:
    "I am protective of an environment that rewards hard work and good choices, and does not reward less than that. My new understanding of the estate tax makes it a non-issue with me whether is stays or goes."

    I too am protective of - and agressively lobby for - an environment that rewards hard work and good choices. The harsh reality is that most Americans work hard and make good choices but are punished. Every American tax dollar funneled into the blunder of choice is a dollar stolen from our own crumbling US infrastructure - the lifeblood of our country. The working poor are not a myth. People with strong values, a good head on their shoulders and a responsible work ethic still have a hard time making a living wage.

    My second question is about "My new understanding of the estate tax makes it a non-issue with me whether is stays or goes." Repealing the estate tax will cause dramatic revenue decrease which will either (1) further elevate the spiraling deficit, which is already being passed on to our children and grandchildren at an alarming rate, (2) force taxes up for the rest of America, or (3) result in further cuts to programs. I agree that there is dramatic need for eliminating government waste in spending, but unfortunately the current prosposed cuts seem misguided for world's leading democracy, and these cuts are BEFORE the estate tax repeal!

    For clarity's sake, I am a progressive, not a liberal. This linked article is a very basic primer on the difference. I shun the left/right dichotomy which grossly oversimplifies and distorts the dialogue, aside from it also too often being used as a shield or weapon of the intellectually lazy on both sides of the aisle. It's unfortunate that too many Americans are unable or unwilling to deal with the greater nuances that make democracy great.

    on DeLay
    Got the info on the other grand juries - thanks for the update. It's amazing how information travels (or doesn't). I'm with you - and just like with the Plame investigation - I'm happy to leave all judgments at the door until trials are underway or done.

    I can only add that all the charges under investigation by Earle, Fitzgerald and the SEC are serious and worthy of prosecution, regardless of outcome or who happens to be the target of the investigation.

     

  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    bkln, while I emphasize policies that strengthen corporations where possible due to the fact that the working class needs them to be strong, I side with you being angered against the wrongdoing of corporations against the little guy, the environment and criminal actions.

    Perhaps I am addressing the left as a whole here instead of left leaning individuals who might think correctly here, but it seems like the left sees what some corporations do and want to make an enemy of all of them.

    I realize corporate wrong doing has either risen in recent times or is more being exposed than in the past, but let policy isolate the wrong doing and address it instead of targeting corporations as a whole.

    Many on the left think that by socializing business like it is in Europe will rid them of the corruption and wrong doing. Rather, it will likely instead insulate them more from prosecution against wrongdoing. I don't think it could be denied that in the US and any other country the government (federal, state and local) is by far the most corrupt body that exists. To put business in their hands would not have the affect liberals think.


    estate tax

    will continue to study this issue to see if I want to move off my current neutral stance.

    liberal vs. progressive
    will study the differences further. I admit at this time I do not see a difference.

    Delay

    Good ending point to this topic. I think we understand each other here.

    Wish I could blog further today but I need to work with my son on homework for several hours. either later tonight or tomorrow. I did shoot my time budget with some new posts, but what can I say. Good exchanges, thanks.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home