Tom DeLay; his time has come.
 

Well, Tom DeLay is indicted and commisurates with Bill Clinton....This is a political witch hunt, just like Clinton.

Ahem, money or a B-job it is always something, eh? Those pols have it made!!!

:mg: :lol:

Has this just about as much chance as Clinton's impeachment or is there the possiblity DeLay will actually go to gaol?

He has about as much chance of going to gaol as he has of going to jail.

Anyone have a more, um, quantitative thought?

The factors:

1) Conspiracy is harder to prove than a basic crime
2) Earle, regardless of what evidence he has, doesn't have jurisdiction over DeLay for anything but conspiracy.
3) The DA who does have jurisdiction is pretty solidly Republican.
4) DeLay has major political clout to frustrate the investigation, especially in Texas.

On the other hand,
5) Earle has a very good track record with corruption cases
6) He isn't likely to want to mess that up with an indictment that he can't back up
7) Several underlings have also been indicted, who may flip
8) The sheer scale of DeLay's corruption makes it more likely that he slipped up somewhere.
9) DeLay was somehow convinced to waive the statute of limitations in order to delay the indictment

Hey, you wanted quantitative.

Thanks, sounds like there is a good chance.

For the case against the case against DeLay, see Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, on Fox News. They are, like, "My God, is this mess an indictment? We've read all three and a half pages half a dozen times and can't even see DeLay's been accused of anything; trying to find legal meaning in this is like trying to screw fog." Hannity speculates the real payoff is not in a conviction, but in obliging, per Republican Party rules, the Republican Majority Leader to step down for the time being. Interestingly, the Democratic Party does not have a similar bylaw -- a Democrat in a similar position can just sit tight.

Makes you go Hmmm.

Oh, well now that you have quoted fair and impartial sources I guess we will all just have to pack up and leave it alone....NOT.

It's called money laundering. Look it up.

So what source told you the Democratic party doesn't have a similar bylaw?

I don't know whether the Democrats have that rule now, but the Republican rule was put in place so the Republicans could gloat over Rostenkowski. When the chickens came home to roost, DeLay tried his best to get the rule removed.

Heh. Well, if they say so.

Rich: Sean Hannity. And this point has been mentioned before by sundry commentators.

Oh,yeah: only the people who wish it publicly known that they aren't too well informed and don't think very well reject Fox News out of hand. Pseudosophisticates, dolts, half-bright leftists, GIGO hobbyists, cranks, persons who'd really rather Saddam won because America opposes him and who aren't perceptibly committed to keeping this Republic -- that sort.

You didn't say Fox News. You said O'Reilly and Hannity, both of whom - especially the latter - it is perfectly safe to dismiss out of hand.

That's where you find 'em, Monkey -- though their radio shows are also around. The radio shows tend to cover the same material as their television shows, so I'd catch either one rather than both in a day. And frankly, dismissing these men out of hand isn't the action of the wise, but rather of the willfully ignorant, carefully foolish, and the shallow pseudosophisticate. I'd rather deal with genuinely sophisticated people, thank you, and I don't think I'm unreasonable in this preference.

Hannity's first literary outing, Let Freedom Ring, isn't as deep as his second, Deliver Us From Evil, which is the Hannity book I recommend. If Hannity isn't your cup of tea, try anything by Larry Elder or Ken Hamblin -- two more goodhearted talk-radio hosts with their heads screwed on nose to front.

In the meantime, Al Franken is asking his listeners for money to try to keep the station afloat. They are even offering a series of PBS-like "gifts."

I do, in fact, occasionally catch O'Reilly's radio program. My judgement stands.
That sounds like a description of Hannity.

Hannity is an annoying blowhard.

O'Reilly does shallow populism... not as annoying.

I wouldn't count on either of 'em for more than a point of view

Try reading some Molly Ivins (ahem).

When you reveal your sources like this, it makes it easier to refute your misstatements. Should I take it up with O'Reilly and Hannity about their mistakes? I will instead correct your misunderstanding, since you repeat their ignorance as your own.

Because they, or you, cannot understand an indictment and its proper formatting is irrelevant.

I read their comments, their exclamations of indignant ignorace, and I found it perfectly congruent with all their remarks that have come before. They are entertainers--not newsmen. Editorialists, not journalists. Spouters of opinion, not speakers of facts. I do in fact dismiss them, and you, not out of hand, but specifically because of what they say. I do not find them entertaining and I disagree with their opinions. You correctly, perhaps ironically and accidentally, pointed out the truth of GIGO. Because I do not wish to put garbage out, I do not put their libelous editorials in.

V, now let's try a little correction of your misstatements. Were those commentators libelous, they'd get sued for it. Were they habitually libelous, they'd get sued a lot and fired, or they'd very firmly be obliged to change their tone, so corporate management doesn't have to keep footing legal bills. Yes, I am aware O'Reilly's caught some kind of legal trouble because somebody alleges he talked dirty to her.

Do you see that tone change occurring? I didn't think so. Time for you to quit ingesting garbage, I should think. Since I'm not as stupid as you hope, best you consider why somebody as bright as I am whether you like it or not would trust them over you. Come on, BigV; you're "some guy on the Internet." It takes wise posting to hurdle that bar. Yes, I know not all one's postings are equally wise, but I am always willing to give a guy a fair shake.

I like both of them, on radio and TV, but I think O'Reilly is far more annoying. He projects an arrogant smugness, while Hannity comes across more like a guy with whom you sit in a bar for a few hours, figuring out the best way to run the world once someone gives you the keys.

Besides, Hannity's cuter.

A point of view is exactly why they are on the air. They are not news. There is plenty of news out there. They are commentators, not newsmen. You may choose to take their comments wholeheartedly or with a grain of salt.

Most people don't consider the NYT Opinion page to be news. I often wonder why they make the mistake of considering television opinion pieces as news.

That only happens to real reporters not editorialists.
Not if they're following the corporate agenda. :headshake

I like to read Molly, Because she's a redneck. Do I rush and change my mind because I read her? NO. I also read other commentaries such as NY Post Columnists, Washington Post Editorial, National Review Online, LA Times Op Ed, SF Chronicle Editorial, molly and A H. Who needs to be bitch slapped, from what I saw on the great Larry KIng joke show other night.
Do I understand the crap that most spout? NO! And not sure that they do.
But I think I'm leaning way towards TW's view of the MBA's.

A H. Armand Hammer? Isn't he dead?

Molly Ivins is interesting in this curious contradiction in her philosophy: she writes anti-2nd Amendment editorials, yet she is firmly pro-1st Amendment. If she fully understood what she's in favor of, that being individual civil rights vis-à-vis government, she'd be in favor, and writing in favor, of the 2nd Amendment also.

Bruce, would anyone truly interested in fair and balanced (tm, just about) actually have the least problem with a corporate agenda that opposes and counteracts and counterpoises that of the New York Times? You can do worse than to lean opposing biases against each other and drop a plumb line down between them to find something that satisfies you as to the truth of the matter(s).

The left-of-center monopoly on the channels of information to the American people is at an end, and loud is the squalling of those left stranded by this shift. Frankly, it's a disgusting noise, and the sooner quieted, the better. It's a new game now, and if you can't adapt, you die.

I didn't realize that the left-of-center had a monopoly to begin with...this is news to me. Last I saw, the media was fairly sensational and hyperactive, and people play/have played to it (most recently, Ray Nagin and Tom DeLay)...but bias? I don't think so. After all, the NYT and WP were practically hyping the 2nd Iraq war before it began.

Actually, I think Molly Ivins never expected to be anything more than the diarist of the Texas Legislature. It was already a strange beast when she started, but since then it has swelled and morphed and spawned the most terrifying evil empire this country has ever seen when it launched GWB on the world. Frankly, I don't think Molly is up to the task anymore once she steps outside the Texas state line. The horror is just too great, she begins to come across as a bit hysterical. Nevertheless, she does make some dead-right observations. I can understand why many people would not take Molly Ivins seriously, believing she is "too liberal"; what I can't understand is why 50+% of the electorate is not taking seriously so many others who have much more impressive credentials and are pointing out the same disasters in the making.

The A.H. above is Arianna Huffington

What I said was;Fair and balanced? Why can't somebody, anybody, just report the god damn facts without telling me what I should think it means? News not spin. :mad:

So, are you proposing suspending the First Amendment? And if so, as a veteran who took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution', does that mean we get to watch you shoot yourself? If so, can I have the pay-per-view rights?

BTW, just because the monied elite have figured out a way to get a vocal minority of the public to sign on to a plan to let them rape the national treasury doesn't automatically make them right.

This "We'll let you have tax cuts, completely fuck up the books, and trample our rights if you'll keep gays from marrying, appoint a 'right wing' activist to the Supreme Court to take on the 'left wing' activists, and turn public school into Sunday school" mentality is beginning to get on my nerves. It's bad enouch watching people line up to burn the Constitution for the illusion of safety. It's way too depressing to watch them sell out for the promise that the goverment will pander to their ideology.

Wrong. Being sued is not a prequisite for libel.

You're saying it takes "wise postings" to "hurdle the bar" of "considering why somebody as bright as you...trusts them over me"? Did I scan that right? Or are you saying that as just "some guy on the internet" I don't have the standing to identify libelous, defamatory, malicious remarks when I hear them? Or did you get crossed up in another one of your long-ass sentences and just fail to stick the landing? It doesn't really matter. You're really only making another one of your repetitve, monotonous, windbaggy insults--more garbage I refuse to take in.

UG, I do not accept you as my pupil. You do not posess the proper attitude. If you learn anything from me, it is to your credit and you'll be better for it, but I decline to take responsibility to teach you the error of your ways. Should your attitude and your ability to think clearly improve, you may petition again. In the meantime, you have a LOT of work to do and I leave you to it.

As easy as

Abra

Cadabra.

when Delay was the rep. for Sugarland he did get a radar installed for the tower at the Sugarland Airport. it was very badly needed. one time i almost had a head on collision in the traffic pattern due to controller error. that other plan and i missed each other by a matter of probably 20 yards. a very close distance when your talking opposing traffic. anyway i'd heard that people in the area were petitioning for radar to be installed in the tower. i called and put my two cents in and i guess enough people had called/written that they scavanged a radar from an old tower someplace else that was being replace with newer better stuff. hand me down or not, it serves it's purpose for the Sugarland tower air environment.

Sure....he's always willing to do something for you rich people. :lol2:

TOM SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN GARBAGE COLLECTION.

:lol2: yeah, i'm not rich, i just have an expensive rediculous hobby!

Delay's second indictment in a week. Serious stuff. Money laundering is a class one felony, with life in prison as the upper end of the penalty range.

The whole I give the RNC $190,000 and a list of names the RNC gives $190,000 to the names on the list is just a liitle... tidy. If true, I think money laundering is the right charge.

The money laundering happened. There's no question of that. The case will be about DeLay's involvement, and how much involvement they can prove.

Cellar Greatest Hits nomination :thumb: