PDA

View Full Version : Courts keeping your increasingly illegal regeme down?


HelloKitty
01-04-2005, 05:12:44
Well, why not just find a good rallying point and impeach any judges who rule against your side?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/schiavo.washington.ap/index.html

Speaking with reporters later in Houston, DeLay said lawmakers "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the President."

Asked if that included the possibility of the House bringing impeachment charges against judges involved in the Schiavo case, DeLay said, "There's plenty of time to look into that."

If you controlt he courts, everything you do is legal!

JM^3
01-04-2005, 05:14:08
how many years do we have left of thme?

M

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
01-04-2005, 05:42:43
Years?

Chris
01-04-2005, 05:55:33
Courts are supposed to UPHOLD the law, not make it.

Too many US judges have taken up the latter.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
01-04-2005, 06:15:22
That's true, but in the Schiavo case the situation seemed to be turned on it's head (judges were upholding the law, wheras Congress was trying to circumvent it - isn't there something in the Constutution making it illegal to make laws that affect a solitary individual?)

Shining1
01-04-2005, 06:20:34
Elected Representatives >> Appointed Public Servants.

I mean, what if you could stack the supreme court with sympathisers to allow you to win an election based on a legal challenge instead of actual democracy? Wouldn't that be scary?

Koshko
01-04-2005, 07:00:03
The judges were upholding the laws. The Congress was trying to force in new laws to undo the old laws. I guess you could say that both the judge and the Congress were doing there jobs. I think what the Congress was trying to do would have ultimately been deemed unconstitutional though.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 09:10:39
Bullshit.

Congress exercised their constitutional powers. It cannot be unconstitutional to do what the constitution specifies can and should be done.

What Congress did was specify that the federal courts had jurisdiction to review the Schiavo case. Congress, not the courts, decide what the courts jurisdiction is. Congress didn't state anything other then the federal courts had jurisdiction, that the appropriate federal judges should review the case and see if it was handled correctly, and if not, then the federal courts could have an in nova review (retry the matter).

Mind you, Clinton wouldn't have stood by. He didn't care when he needed to break the law to do what he wanted. I don't recall people around here bitching and making fun of Clinton for overstepping his powers. Strangely, Bush and Congress both follow the constitution and the laws of the land, and people are bitching about it.

Some of the judges are bound to get screwed for what they did. Some actually broke laws, which made themselves vulnerable while being in the national media's eye. Others made Congress look bad (not that Congress needs help for that). Congress isn't going to like the judges making them look like fools while the national cameras were one them, so Congress is bound to screw them back. Basic politics. Its how our system is set up, to try to put some checks on the different branches of our government.

Gary
01-04-2005, 09:15:11
Courts interpret the law, effectively making it.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 09:51:27
Police enforce the law, effectively making it.
Legislatures make the law, effectively making it.

The final arbitrator what should be legal in a democracy, are the people. They'll get the laws enforced that they want enforced, the laws passed that the want passed, and the laws repelled or voided that they don't want. It just takes a while. ;)

Gary
01-04-2005, 09:55:10
Makes you wish you had a democracy then

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 10:33:14
:lol:

We are a Represenative Republic. It's as close as we can get, what with our traditional of doing everything half assed. ;)

Oerdin
01-04-2005, 11:16:25
Originally posted by Chris
Courts are supposed to UPHOLD the law, not make it.

Too many US judges have taken up the latter.

The courts did uphold the law just as the courts upheld the Constitutional separation of powers. Most of those "arrogant judges" were conservatives and that fascist bastard Tom Delay is just angry that they dared to decide the matter based upon the law instead of his personal religious beliefs.

Tom Delay really is a fascist bastard. It was clear when he was gerrymandering Congressional districts in Texas to prevent fair elections and it is clear now as he rails against the Constitution's separation of powers.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 11:21:22
I like seperation of powers.

If Delay is bitching about not being able to do anything, that's just lip service. They had the chance to make a law so they could do whatever they wanted. They could have made a law that stated a parent can always giver their children food or water. Instead, they defined that the federal courts had jurisdiction to review the matter, and punted. Why? So they could play both sides of the politics. It looks like they did something, and the courts stopped them... when really, since the husband was the cognitive spouse and legal guardian, the odds that even an in nova review would have turned out a different result was very low. That's just basic politics. Look good for the voters, but do nothing of actual value.

Oerdin
01-04-2005, 11:25:17
Even conservative Congressmen are saying Delay went beyond the pale. The man has been going beyond the pale his entire life and has done illegal and immoral act after illegal and immoral act but still the Republicans make him their leader in the house. He is the one who commited such great crimes that his own party had to bring him up on corruption charges and still Delay has the nerve to claim it is all a Democratic conspiracy against him. :rolleyes:

Still, the Limbaugh listening idiots will eat it up just as they eat up every unintillegent thing which is given them. I fear for the nation's future.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 11:31:35
:rolleyes: Hey, it was all a Republican conspiracy against the Clintons, you know. He never did anything wrong. He and Hilary were always being framed by people jealous of their so obvious love and happiness.

Most politicians are scum, Oerdin. Some just don't hide it as well as others. And some just stop hiding it after a while.

:mad: And Rush is fairly entertaining from time to time! Of course, I'm in a small radio market town, and the local talent generally isn't, but still... Is this a non-comformity issue for you? Or do you have a serious issue with a man that's made a career out of picking on the Demoncrats? ;)

Oerdin
01-04-2005, 11:36:49
Except there never was anything illegal about White Water. Tom Delay is as corrupt as they come and even his own party knows it; the only difference is the Republicas changed their own ethics standards to keep a clearly unethical man as head of their party in the House. What does that say about the Republican Party?

Oerdin
01-04-2005, 11:41:50
I seriously have an issue with a man who is a hypocrit. Democrats do something and it is just so so bad but Republicans do far worse and it is just so ok. The man is a drug using liar, a hypocrit, and he gets pawned every time he doesn't have screeners to protect him. The very fact that large parts of red states continue to listen to his lies shows what mental degenerates most people in this country are.

Chris
01-04-2005, 15:58:41
Not to bitter about losing elections, are you? :coolgrin:

Lurker
01-04-2005, 16:22:20
I love it. Judge or judges rule against you, get rid of the judges.
Just like that guy in Chicago.

Funko
01-04-2005, 16:23:51
If there are no judges lawyers will be fucked too.

Oerdin
01-04-2005, 16:45:17
Originally posted by Chris
Not to bitter about losing elections, are you? :coolgrin:

Nope, I just like to laugh as you folks get your panties in a bunch.

Chris
01-04-2005, 16:58:38
I notice you made a number of rather panicky posts, better check your own. :smoke:

King_Ghidra
01-04-2005, 16:59:07
:lol:

King_Ghidra
01-04-2005, 17:06:08
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.329.gif

Immortal Wombat
01-04-2005, 17:09:51
Originally posted by Darkstar
I don't recall people around here bitching and making fun of Clinton for overstepping his powers. Strangely
But then of course "around here" didn't exist Clinton had been out of office for over a year.

Chris
01-04-2005, 17:12:35
Then he wasn't lying, was he?

Lurker
01-04-2005, 17:16:13
Just delusional.

Carry on.

Chris
01-04-2005, 17:18:42
Insulted by Lurker.

Doesn't get and worse then that.

Except if you smell him.

Lurker
01-04-2005, 17:28:23
In this particular case, how is that an insult?

Chris
01-04-2005, 17:35:33
Dammit.

Darkstar
02-04-2005, 03:31:43
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
But then of course "around here" didn't exist Clinton had been out of office for over a year.

I was talking about the people of this community. Most of us have known each other since Clinton was president, IW. I suppose that slipped your notice?

Clinton decided to ignore the rule of law and ordered Reno to take a boy away from the family whom the Florida courts had decided he should be with. The Federal courts had reviewed the matter, and agreed with the State courts. If Terry had happened under Clinton, Clinton would have sent in his FBI Storm Troopers, under Janet Reno, to seize Terry. Whenever the law got in Clinton's way, he ignored it.

What did we hear about that? How dare Florida judges rule against what the people want! Clinton is the elected representative of our will! Clinton made what we want to happen in this case! The president doesn't have to follow or respect the laws! He chooses what laws to enforce! Why are we even wasting time on this anyway? Let's hunt a K-Beast!

Okay. It was all of what, 2 long time posters? A lot of digs after that though, from the rightward to the rightmost, about Janet Reno and her storm troopers going into wherever Clinton found politically expediate. Especially by Walrus, AIR. ;)

Darkstar
02-04-2005, 03:40:31
Oerdin, you need to move to San Fran, now! Your people are calling you! ;)

Every single human being alive is an occasional hypocrit. Every politician is, and Rush was a mayor, you know. A retired politician. He was a successful one, which means he's slick and greasy.

Now, there is a lot of hypocrisy concerning Rush's legal woes... and it's at least spread evenly, if not more on the side against Rush. So you had really best stop slapping around that hypocricy brush. There's an oceanful of that to go around.

If being a drug user is bad, that's going to be a lot more then just Rush that's in trouble, who should be dragged away and never heard from again. That list would include a lot of posters here, Oerdin. I don't mind Congress and at least half the police and judges dragged away to be thrown in the same pile as Rush, but I'd miss a few of our posters.

Oerdin
02-04-2005, 03:58:21
Originally posted by Chris
I notice you made a number of rather panicky posts, better check your own. :smoke:

I didn't see any panicky posts though I did see me calling a shit bag a shit bag. Around here we call that straight talk.

Oerdin
02-04-2005, 04:02:14
Originally posted by Darkstar

Every single human being alive is an occasional hypocrit.

Some more then others. Even amoung politicians the Republican leadership are amoung the worst offenders. Especially Tom Delay.

Darkstar
02-04-2005, 04:07:37
Leadership on both sides are as equally hypocritical, from what I've read. I'm not surprised by it. Especially not in national level, career politicians.

I won't be upset if Delay doesn't manage to get re-elected. But it does seem you'd raise a toast to that event. ;)

Koshko
02-04-2005, 06:39:20
The sad thing is that he probably will be re-elected. Everybody gets re-elected. I mean statistically, once you get in, you are there until you retire or die of old age. It's literally like 96% re-election rate.

Oerdin
02-04-2005, 06:52:10
the main reason encombents never lose is because they can adjust their districts to create so called "safe districts". Basically the politicians are choosing the voters instead of the voters choosing the politicians. Currently the politician's highest priority is to protect his seat but that isn't the voters highest priority. gerrymandering insures he almost always keeps his seat and that is simply undemocratic.

Chris
02-04-2005, 08:25:44
Originally posted by Oerdin
I didn't see any panicky posts though I did see me calling a shit bag a shit bag. Around here we call that straight talk. Reread what you wrote, its as panicky as it gets.

You don't like Delay because you are a partisan hack, or you would admit his so-called 'inditement' was a fraud, and you wouldn't throw it out their that he was 'indited', by not doing so, and using a discription you know is fake, makes YOU the hypocrit, not anyone else.

The entire point of represenitive government is for it to make rules and laws, you act like Delay using the authority investited in him in the constitution is a crime, with is why you come off as a cry baby.

It isn't up to judges to obey only laws they like, they can only do so if a law is PROVEN to be unconstitutional, and even then, it must have proof it is so, too many judges simply use the phrase because a law may be against the judges' particular agenda.

Congress passed a law in the Schiavo case that only said the federal court was to look at THE ENTIRE CASE as if it was new, and federal judges refused, instead simply upholding the previous ruling that the husband has cuostody. That is CONTEMPT of congress, a congress by the way, that voted Bi Partisan on this issue, almost 50% of the democrats whom voted on this, voted for it. Are they also Tom delay hacks? Both houses? :rolleyes:

This was no 'intrusion' into a familay affair, Judge Greer had ALREADY done that when the two sides came to his court, it was an attempt to find out what Mrs Schiavo's condition was, outside of the influence of BOTH sides, and too see if their was any basis in the parents' claim their daughter was brain dead.

If she had left a living will, the matter would never had come to this, but the case was incredibly complex, with charge and counter charge.

Delay is 100% correct here, judges they refuse to obey laws that are leagal are subject to recall and replacement.

So spare me your partisan antics, I expect it from Kitty, you usually show more sense.

Oerdin
02-04-2005, 08:36:48
I'm still not seeing anything panicy but I'm used to you living in your own little FFZ world.

I'm calling the Republican establishment hyprocritical because they inacted strong ethics rules to show they were better then the Democrats but they cancelled those rules the second they had to be applied. The rules said if someone was even under investigation then they couldn't hold a leadership position. Why the sudden change of heart? Also I wouldn't say they charges were fake at all the only people saying they are are partisan hacks on talk radio or other partisan media outlets. It absolutely amazes me you got continually claimed there was any wrong doing in White Water but you attempt to White Wash Tom Delay.

As for your claim that judges only obeyed laws they like... that's just laughable. The law congress passed just said the case had to be reviewed by a Federal Court. The Federal Court took one look at it and said "Yep, the state court got it right" and that was that. Republicans were in a huff because the courts examined the case according to the law and decided counter to their stance. That doesn't mean the court didn't base its entire decision upon the law.

Chris
02-04-2005, 08:52:43
Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm calling the Republican establishment hyprocritical because they inacted =strong ethics rules to show they were better then the Democrats but they cancelled those rules the second they had to be applied. They did not invision how petty Democrats could be, like the prosecuter in a tiny Texas distric that indited Delay, and in his own words, did so only so he would be pushed out.

If your side cheats, don't expect the other to just bend over and take it. You should be condemming a false inditement.

The rules said if someone was even under investigation then they could hold a leadership position. why the sudden change of heart? Again, it was intended for a serious charge, not someone diliberately missusing their authority.

Also I wouldn't say they charges were fack at all. If you think they were then you've obviously been listening to to much Rush Limbaugh and not enough real news.You need to learn what you are talking about, ans stop throwing out Limbaugh's name as if it gives yhou some kind of credibilty.

Limbaugh is a carnival huckster, the same as Al franken.

As for your claim that judges only obeyed laws they like... that's just laughable. Again, reread what I said, I didn't say all judges, the exact phrase I used was 'TOO MANY," and in fact, ONE such judge would be too many.

The law congress passed just said the case had to be reviewed by a Federal Court. The Federal Court took one look at it and said "Yep, the state court got it right" and that was that. Incorrect.
The law said the case was to be viewed "De Novo" and this was not done, instead, the federal appeals court ruled on previous case law, that spouses have custody in such cases.
They ignored the new law completely.

Republicans were in a huff because the courts examined the case according to the law and decided counter to their stance.Delay is angry because the Courts again took it upon themselves to ignore a law they did not like, and will be held accountable.
Do you know the POTUS can vacate any judge in the nation, by declaring their courts obsolete?
Thomas Jefferson used this power when he was President.

That doesn't mean the court didn't base its entire decision upon the law. They ignored the new law and instead, simply ruled on the previous law, which in turn was based on Judge Greer's ruling entirely on Mr Schiavo's testimony.

Chris
02-04-2005, 08:55:47
I'm still not seeing anything panicy but I'm used to you living in your own little FFZ worldI see you edited in yet another cheap shot.

Quite childish, and further proof what a cry baby you truely are.:coolgrin:

You got bounced because you behaved like a dickhead, you have nobody to blame but yourself, though I did get a kick out of a REMF calling me a chickenhawk! :lol:

Oerdin
02-04-2005, 09:14:34
I edited out a few spelling mistakes and the content is entirely unchanged. You asked me to reread it and I found a few obvious spelling errors. There is no cheap shot there.

BTW the courts just don't agree with your version of the law. I don't believe that everyone who sides against the Republican right is involved in a conspiracy or is ignoring laws they don't like. There is a very good appeals court system and ignoring a judge ignoring a law is a great reason to launch an appeal. These guys repeatedly took it all the way to the SCOTUS and they lost. Every single court said the same thing. You need to learn to let go and accept that maybe they actually did a good job.

Chris
02-04-2005, 09:35:34
Originally posted by Oerdin
I edited out a few spelling mistakes and the content is entirely unchanged. You asked me to reread it and I found a few obvious spelling errors. There is no cheap shot there.:rolleyes:


BTW the courts just don't agree with your version of the law.That is your problem, there are no 'versions' of the law, there is simply the law.
Its people that 'interpret' that cause these problems, instead of following the law.

I don't believe that everyone who sides against the Republican right is involved in a conspiracy or is ignoring laws they don't like. I don't either, I have stated more then once, on a number of boards, the problem in this case is Mrs Schiavo's wishes are not known, but based on heresay, and the husband has motivations for wanting her gone. In such a case, my opinion is you keep someone alive, until you can establish the facts, not simply say 'he has custody, starve her' as was done in this case.

There is a very good appeals court system and ignoring a judge ignoring a law is a great reason to launch an appeal. These guys repeatedly took it all the way to the SCOTUS and they lost. Based on previous case law, they were right to lose.
It was why Congress passed a NEW law, as is the right of Congress.
Every single court said the same thing. You need to learn to let go and accept that maybe they actually did a good job. You need to understand a court can't simply ignore a law because it provides a new avenue previously unavailable.

You still aern't grasping the issue here, Congress passed a NEW law, which was ignored.

That is NOT ruling correctly, they instructed a federal appeals court to view the case from the begining, and each court in turn ignored this, and punted away to 'husband has custody.'

Oerdin
02-04-2005, 09:55:56
Sorry Chris. You keep coming up with these big claims about how evil and wrong the courts were and how they didn't make rulings based upon the law. Every court that looked at the case said the same thing from the Supreme Court on down. They all agreed and none of them seemed to believe what you believe the law said.

I think they understood the law perfectly well and likely much better then you do.

Chris
02-04-2005, 10:06:05
That remains to be seen Oerdin, only time will tell.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
02-04-2005, 17:06:25
I dunno about that Chris. Terry Schiavo died, and I think most of the publicity surrounding this will quietly go away now that various special interest groups have had their time in the sun and there's nothing further to be gained from beating a dead horse.

You might hear some grumblings from various camps, but I'd say this is a dead topic.

Incidentally, Bush made out like a bandit with this issue. He did what he said he could, making the ill-defined "moral issues" voters happy. She ended up not having the feeding tube reinserted and passed away, making the majority of people in the country (polled) happy. The courts have been made to look bad, and for a brief moment it took the spotlight away from the economy (note the current poor jobs figures) and the fact that no-one can agree on anything to do with Social Security.

Chris
02-04-2005, 18:31:43
I think everyone lost here Qaj, to a certain degree.

I'm not sure her dying makes people happy, the polls were worded to say that she is a veg, so most thought death better, some didn't agree with that.

I doubt anyone would have wanted the woman to die if she wasn't a veg.

My personal feeling was, to send it to a third party to find out difinitivly, say over 60 days, her condition without dispute. And if she was gone, to let the husband do away with her.

The best thing to do is leave a living will.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
02-04-2005, 19:14:49
Agreed. And be sure you know who you're giving power of attorney to.

The Mad Monk
02-04-2005, 19:46:15
Originally posted by Lurker
I love it. Judge or judges rule against you, get rid of the judges.
Just like that guy in Chicago.

FDR was from Chicago?

The Mad Monk
02-04-2005, 19:51:09
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
I dunno about that Chris. Terry Schiavo died, and I think most of the publicity surrounding this will quietly go away now that various special interest groups have had their time in the sun and there's nothing further to be gained from beating a dead horse. from the economy (note the current poor jobs figure

You might hear some grumblings from various camps, but I'd say this is a dead topic.


Terry Schiavo's plight was one of the last things the Pope addressed, before he himself was given a feeding tube, then started to die.

That's a pretty powerful image there.

Greg W
02-04-2005, 21:55:20
I'm curious. If removing a feeding tube is playing god, wouldn't keeping someone alive through artificial means also be playing god? I mean, if someone's going to die through natural causes, isn't artificially keeping them alive through the use of machines thwarting the will of god?

I dunno, that's always struck me as a bit odd...

JM^3
02-04-2005, 22:03:55
so you are one of the camp that doesn't think we should use medicine and all that?

JM

Shining1
03-04-2005, 02:53:43
No, he sounds more like he's in the camp that gets a bit disgusted whenever these morons drag out the "Don't play God" tag for anything they disapprove of.

Greg W
03-04-2005, 12:33:56
Right on, neighbour. :beer:

miester gandartak
03-04-2005, 12:44:05
Originally posted by Greg W
I'm curious. If removing a feeding tube is playing god, wouldn't keeping someone alive through artificial means also be playing god?

Of course not! For a religious zealot playing god is something other people do and when you play god it is god's will.

Lurker
03-04-2005, 16:46:31
Here's the statute you're discussing:

AN ACT



For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.



The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.



SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.



Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.



SEC. 3. RELIEF.



After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.



SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.



Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.



SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.



SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.



Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--



(1) to assisting suicide, or



(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.



SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.



Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.



SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.



Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.



SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.



It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

Lefty Scaevola
03-04-2005, 21:53:02
Originally posted by Darkstar
Bullshit.

Congress exercised their constitutional powers. It cannot be unconstitutional to do what the constitution specifies can and should be done.. It is rather doubtful that legislation to void an specific existing state court judjment (as ooposed to possible furture court judgments) is constirutional under state/federal speration of powers or conressional/court separation of powers.

Lefty Scaevola
03-04-2005, 22:01:10
Originally posted by Chris
The law said the case was to be viewed "De Novo" and this was not done, instead, the federal appeals court ruled on previous case law, that spouses have custody in such cases.
They ignored the new law completely.
'De Novo trial' was not relevant at the procedural stage reach, TRO or Temprary Injunction, which is a preliminary motion stage, not a trial stage, and as a extoidinary injunctive relief (a result order made before a trail) is governed by "equity rules" not trial evidence standards, and where the Judge has much more discretion that at the trial on the merits stage.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
05-04-2005, 17:38:02
The "FACT!s" about DeLay: http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/delaycasefile/index.html

HelloKitty
05-04-2005, 17:48:23
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
The "FACT!s" about DeLay: http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/delaycasefile/index.html

I'll save DS the time of looking up a link to all of Clintons evils listed.

http://www.lizmichael.com/clintond.htm

Oerdin
05-04-2005, 18:27:57
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
The "FACT!s" about DeLay: http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/delaycasefile/index.html

We all know he's a lying corrupt sack of shit but don't tell Chris that. He'll tell you there's no merit and all the honest people spout the Republican line about the charges being a liberal plot. :rolleyes:

At the very least Tom Delay is an unethical man.

Darkstar
05-04-2005, 18:38:51
Originally posted by Oerdin
We all know he's a lying corrupt sack of shit but don't tell Chris that. He'll tell you there's no merit and all the honest people spout the Republican line about the charges being a liberal plot. :rolleyes:

At the very least Tom Delay is an unethical man.

No, Oerdin, we don't all know. If we all knew it, then Chris wouldn't be arguing it with you about it. ;)

Hey. Any and all charges against any liberal is just a conservative plot. So the reverse must be true, musten it? That's how 2 party systems work, isn't it? It's always the other party that is the source of all evil.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
05-04-2005, 21:03:23
Originally posted by Oerdin
We all know he's a lying corrupt sack of shit but don't tell Chris that. He'll tell you there's no merit and all the honest people spout the Republican line about the charges being a liberal plot. :rolleyes:

Darn it, that was the point of the troll! You've ruined it all for me now. :cry:

:D

Oerdin
05-04-2005, 21:17:12
Originally posted by Darkstar
No, Oerdin, we don't all know. If we all knew it, then Chris wouldn't be arguing it with you about it. ;)

No, Chris knows even if he can't bring himself to admit it.

Darkstar
05-04-2005, 21:38:16
I would have to disagree with that. If Chris knew, I believe he'd have shifted his point of attack to something else at the beginning, and maintained on that point.

Asher
05-04-2005, 21:53:19
You don't like Delay because you are a partisan hack
I don't like Delay because he's a tool.

I don't like you because you're a partisan hack for a tool, which makes you a tool as well.

Darkstar
05-04-2005, 22:58:55
:confused: Ash, I thought you liked big tools.

Asher
06-04-2005, 00:26:24
Who said that? There's such a thing as too big.