Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

sweet home ChicagoFollow

#27 Aug 20 2014 at 3:13 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
It doesn't seem like any big secret that he wanted this oversight agency gone or at least have it's power reigned in.


Are you saying he would have wanted this even if the DA hadn't been arrested for drunk driving?
i'm saying what it says. Interpret at will.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#28 Aug 20 2014 at 5:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
That is, if they find that Perry can't do this, then they could just force him to release the funding, rather than remove him from office and/or throw him in jail.


The abuse of power, in this instance, was his trying to force a resignation by withholding funds already allocated. "Step down and let me replace you, or your department has no budget."

At least that's the undoubtedly biased interpretation I've heard.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#29 Aug 20 2014 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Samira wrote:
At least that's the undoubtedly biased interpretation I've heard.
No good guys scenarios are always fun.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Aug 20 2014 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
It's also kind of eyebrow raising to attempt to defund a department whose stated purpose is investigating corruption, for any reason. Surely the department doesn't have a huge enough budget to warrant cuts for deficit relief purposes.
#31 Aug 20 2014 at 2:36 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The abuse of power

Let's not get silly. The Governor of Texas has virtually no power. Probably the weakest seat in the nation in those terms.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Aug 20 2014 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Veto is veto is veto, Vito.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#33 Aug 20 2014 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Samira wrote:
Veto is veto is veto, Vito.

We have clearance, Clarence.

Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#34 Aug 20 2014 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Demea wrote:
Samira wrote:
Veto is veto is veto, Vito.

We have clearance, Clarence.

Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?


50 Ways to Leave Your... Governor?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#35 Aug 20 2014 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
That is, if they find that Perry can't do this, then they could just force him to release the funding, rather than remove him from office and/or throw him in jail.


The abuse of power, in this instance, was his trying to force a resignation by withholding funds already allocated. "Step down and let me replace you, or your department has no budget."


It's not a misuse of power, except by an impossibly broad interpretation of the term. He has the legal authority to line item veto funding. It's not misuse for him to use power he is granted. He isn't required to have any reason at all to do this. It's purely a political decision, just like politicians make all the time. Additionally, the thing he was requesting (her resignation) is not outside the scope of governance. If he demanded that she give him a ********, or pay him money under threat of defunding the PIU, it would be a much stronger case. But IMO, it's a purely political decision to decide not to fund a program run by someone who was just convicted of a DUI.

Making that sort of decision is implicit in the line item veto power he possess. Obviously, if there's more to this than just saying "I'm not funding this department as long as she's running it", then my opinion may change. But if that's the sole cause for the indictment, then this looks completely political. To me, using the legal system to attack politicians who do things you don't like is far far far more of a concern than using the power granted to you by the voters to do the same. If this is the standard for abuse of power, then you could argue for this anytime any politician makes a decision to support or oppose something for political reasons. And this happens all the time. Legislators agree to support bills (or oppose them) in return for support for other bills. It's done all the time. How on earth can that result in criminal charges?

Quote:
At least that's the undoubtedly biased interpretation I've heard.


I think that's an accurate interpretation. It's just a bizarre use of the indictment process to basically influence a political decision. The point I was angling towards earlier was that if Perry was free to defund this agency in the absence of a drunk driving conviction on the person running it, then we're presented with the bizarre concept that the way to prevent the governor from defunding your department is to do something that would result in calls for your resignation. Um... Which is ridiculous.

Edited, Aug 20th 2014 3:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Aug 20 2014 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
To me, using the legal system to attack politicians who do things you don't like is far far far more of a concern than using the power granted to you by the voters to do the same.


I think this is a perfect use of the justice system, for dispute resolution over an injustice, real or imagined. It's all about Checks and Balances, right?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#37 Aug 20 2014 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
To me, using the legal system to attack politicians who do things you don't like is far far far more of a concern than using the power granted to you by the voters to do the same.

The point of the legal system is to determine if there's been wrong doing. A grand jury thought there was enough of a case here to proceed. Now, it might fizzle out from there but you can't frame this as "some guy just decided he didn't like Perry and is using the legal system, oh no!".

That said, your statement gave me the giggles since the GOP is busy trying to use the legal system to attack a president they don't like rather than using their actual Congressional powers of impeachment if they thought there was a real issue and weren't just playing politics Smiley: laugh

Oh, go ahead now with your million reasons why that case is so legitimate, yadda yadda...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 20 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To me, using the legal system to attack politicians who do things you don't like is far far far more of a concern than using the power granted to you by the voters to do the same.

What Stupidmonkey said


FTFY Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#39 Aug 21 2014 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
To me, using the legal system to attack politicians who do things you don't like is far far far more of a concern than using the power granted to you by the voters to do the same.
Weird, you've been awful quiet about Boehner doing just that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Aug 21 2014 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This thread is kinda-sorta electiony enough.

Electoral-Vote.com is back up and tracking the Senate races. I always enjoy his analysis but he goes "dark" between seasons and never promises to come back so thought I'd give a heads yp in case anyone else used to read him.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Aug 21 2014 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yay! And since this seems to be our purely political thread du jour, I'll just leave this here as well:



Edited to add: obviously, the big gaffe was implying that Jeebus wrote the Constitution. However I'm interested in what happened in 1884 that ruined America.

The only thing that stands out is the creation of the 8-hour workday as a standard, which I guess was a step toward our current rampant socialism?


Edited, Aug 21st 2014 10:10am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#42 Aug 21 2014 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Maybe he means Harry Truman's birth?

Considering there are people that actively believe Jesus was resurrected in America, I'm not at all surprised, shocked, or emotioned in any way that there are people that would believe a religious figurehead wrote the Constitution. Also, not emotioned in any way when people treat the writers of said Constitution as religious figureheads.

Edited, Aug 21st 2014 1:35pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Aug 21 2014 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This thread is kinda-sorta electiony enough.

Electoral-Vote.com is back up and tracking the Senate races. I always enjoy his analysis but he goes "dark" between seasons and never promises to come back so thought I'd give a heads yp in case anyone else used to read him.


Quote:
The conclusion is that some people do not believe in Rasmussen's polls any more. For these people, we have produced this page, which is generated exactly the same way as the main page and the Senate page, except that first all the Rasmussen polls are temporarily removed from the database.


Smiley: yippee
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#44 Aug 21 2014 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I had actually forgotten there even was a Senate race here in 2014. Looking at the GOP candidates, Markey may as well be running unopposed.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Aug 21 2014 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Smiley: yippee

Scott Rasmussen is a terrible enough pollster that he managed to get himself fired from Rasmussen Reports. That takes a special kind of terrible.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Aug 22 2014 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Yuck, looks like 4 more years of quagmire.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#47 Aug 22 2014 at 8:09 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Giggity!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#48 Aug 22 2014 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#49 Aug 26 2014 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To me, using the legal system to attack politicians who do things you don't like is far far far more of a concern than using the power granted to you by the voters to do the same.

The point of the legal system is to determine if there's been wrong doing.


Sure. But when the purpose of doing so is simply to get the indictment, knowing that this will by itself have political ramifications, it's an abuse of said legal system. It's become one of the dirty tricks that the Left uses when it knows it can't win political power fairly.

Quote:
A grand jury thought there was enough of a case here to proceed.


Sure. Which increasingly just means that 9 out of 12 people with limited legal knowledge and presented with only one side of the case decided that the case met the minimum requirements to possibly be true. Grand Juries are basically indictment machines. It's very rare for them to not indict, so it really reflects whether the case was brought to the jury in the first place, not whether there's sufficient evidence to actually hold a trial (which an arraignment process is much much much much much (times like 10000 more muches) better at accomplishing.

Quote:
Now, it might fizzle out from there but you can't frame this as "some guy just decided he didn't like Perry and is using the legal system, oh no!".


Except that's more or less exactly what happened. The "some guy" is a member of the group "Texans for Public Justice" named Craig McDonald. While the group claims to be non-partisan (hahaha! Yeah), they're basically a front group funded by far left political organizations specifically to file legal charges against political enemies (which is mostly Republicans, but the occasional Democrat who's not liberal enough apparently qualifies).

Now, I'm not sure how the grand jury process works in Texas and what levels of decision making occurs between someone like McDonald filing the criminal compliant and a grand jury looking at the evidence and deciding whether to indict, but from the admittedly surface level research I've done, it looks fairly automatic. If someone takes the time and trouble to properly file a criminal complaint, it ends out in front of a grand jury. Which means that all you really need for an indictment is a politician doing something that can be made to appear like it might be illegal to someone who isn't very knowledgeable of the law (well, 9 out of 12 someones) and taking the time/money to file the complaint.

Quote:
That said, your statement gave me the giggles since the GOP is busy trying to use the legal system to attack a president they don't like rather than using their actual Congressional powers of impeachment if they thought there was a real issue and weren't just playing politics Smiley: laugh


I used a broad term, but I was speaking about the criminal justice system, specifically using grand juries to indict political enemies. Which appears to be an increasingly popular tactic being used by an ever more desperate political Left.

Quote:
Oh, go ahead now with your million reasons why that case is so legitimate, yadda yadda...


Which case, exactly? You mean the lawsuit over Obama's executive overreaches? You do understand that lawsuits are how the courts are brought in on such things, right? And that congress (or individual members of congress) can properly sue in cases where another branch of government does something in violation of constitutional rules and/or separation of powers and are arguably the only ones who can. Didn't the Supreme Court just rule against Obama on the issue of recess appointments? Who do you suppose brought that lawsuit? Oh wait! It was Congress. Because that is precisely the correct legal process to use in those types of situations.


Comparing this to our massively broken grand jury process is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 7:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Aug 26 2014 at 10:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The point of the legal system is to determine if there's been wrong doing.
Sure. But when the purpose of doing so is simply to get the indictment, knowing that this will by itself have political ramifications, it's an abuse of said legal system.
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, go ahead now with your million reasons why that case is so legitimate, yadda yadda...
Which case, exactly? You mean the lawsuit over Obama's executive overreaches? You do understand that lawsuits are how the courts are brought in on such things, right?

Smiley: laugh Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Aug 27 2014 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which increasingly just means that 9 out of 12 people with limited legal knowledge
Nine out of twelve people have a different opinion than you, so that means you understand their job better than they do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 246 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (246)