Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on August 16, 2014, 09:14:17 AM
-
-
careful coach - yes, this woman is a drunk idiot, BUT the law is the law and Perry broke the law by taking away state resources based upon a law he just kinda invented on the fly, right?
I could give a shit about this drunk idiot. But I DO care if my governor, say liberal Crist wins... let's say HE decides everyone with a DUI or a jaywalking or a felon in their family can no longer own guns. That's the equivalent of Perry just inventing a law and taking state resources/imposing on citizens for it.
Nobody is defending this drunk slob. I'd laugh and eat popcorn while she took lashes in the public square. What we do NOT want is the ability for ANY governor to just give and take rights based on an arbitrary system he just deems fit at the time, in a one-at-a-time basis.
You don't want Cali's liberal governor to just take away things from individuals. Please realize what this is about. He broke a big law because the big law is in place for a very good reason. Not to protect this drunk idiot - but to protect you and I from activist governors. I hope this makes sense.
-
careful coach - yes, this woman is a drunk idiot, BUT the law is the law and Perry broke the law by taking away state resources based upon a law he just kinda invented on the fly, right?
I could give a shit about this drunk idiot. But I DO care if my governor, say liberal Crist wins... let's say HE decides everyone with a DUI or a jaywalking or a felon in their family can no longer own guns. That's the equivalent of Perry just inventing a law and taking state resources/imposing on citizens for it.
Nobody is defending this drunk slob. I'd laugh and eat popcorn while she took lashes in the public square. What we do NOT want is the ability for ANY governor to just give and take rights based on an arbitrary system he just deems fit at the time, in a one-at-a-time basis.
You don't want Cali's liberal governor to just take away things from individuals. Please realize what this is about. He broke a big law because the big law is in place for a very good reason. Not to protect this drunk idiot - but to protect you and I from activist governors. I hope this makes sense.
You mean the law is the law and he broke the law according to liberal law? I read he was well within his constitutional legal rights as far as veto power. But, the left is going to interpret it they way they want as long as that fag Obama has the judicial system in his pocket. The entire poltical left are vial pieces of shit. This is what happends when they can't possibly win or argue issues.
-
I agree it's a witch hunt. But there is no such thing as liberal law. There is the law. If conservatives disagree, they should change the law.
Governors cannot be activists with law violations. Suppose California's governor decided tomorrow to ban all guns. You'd like him to be indicted for that, right?
Perry will skate on this. But the moment you allow repub govs to break law, you allow dems to do it also.
Think long term. Think of what happens once you allow one abuse.
-
I agree it's a witch hunt. But there is no such thing as liberal law. There is the law. If conservatives disagree, they should change the law.
Governors cannot be activists with law violations. Suppose California's governor decided tomorrow to ban all guns. You'd like him to be indicted for that, right?
Perry will skate on this. But the moment you allow repub govs to break law, you allow dems to do it also.
Think long term. Think of what happens once you allow one abuse.
Then why does Obama and his cohorts constantly break it with NO recourse? You know it and I know but they think they're beyond it.
-
i suspect over the next 72 hours Gov. Glasses will be on every show that Fox News has on the air.
-
i suspect over the next 72 hours Gov. Glasses will be on every show that Fox News has on the air.
Defending a trumped up charge? He should be. Then when it's done and over go after this bitch with both barrels and end her career.
-
Then why does Obama and his cohorts constantly break it with NO recourse? You know it and I know but they think they're beyond it.
Um, you're talking to the dude who wants to impeach obama. Only thing standing in the way are idiot repubs saying "oh, maybe we'll get a few more seats in congress, can't expllain why, but hey, let's give obama 29 more months of recklessness".
Everything that happens now, related to obama, is the fault of repubs who are willing to trade justice for possibly political gain.
this case is total crap, worthy of much smaller punishment/censure, but not something we can allow our governors to get away with. If you disagree, just replace "Perry" with "Pelosi" and give her the same power. I know, she's not a gov, but the minute you let leaders just randomly grab resources on individuals, you have obama locking bald built white guys in prison for no reason.
-
come to think of it... i think we should all support these petty, pissy little watchdog groups that will call out politicians for every little time they break the law, no matter what their reasoning.
Cause if dems and repubs alike were being scrutinized like this, they wouldn't do some of the outrageous shit they do. Imagine if Obama was faced with 1/10th of the fury this liberal watchdog group brought - We might have answers on things like Fast & Furious, Benghazi, or his birth certificate, which does have some really curious issues about it.
We probably shouldn't get upset that Rick Perry was indicted for breaking the law. We should get republican/conservative watchdog groups into that SAME attack mode... go at Pelosi and Reid and others who have been getting rich off the public teet for decades, and indict them for way more serious things.
I wish there were 100 watchdog groups, forcing indictments on dozens of congressman and governors and mayors breaking the law. All politicians will start following the law all of the time, and they'll stop the "Oh, we'll get away with it" mode that so many live within. Yes, it sucks that Perry has to deal with this headache... but it'd be great if it inspires a dozen republican watchdog groups to force indictments of ten dozen democrats that are breaking the law.
-
Defending a trumped up charge? He should be. Then when it's done and over go after this bitch with both barrels and end her career.
and kiss the female voters away.
-
This bullshit won't stick. As one judge once said "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich".
That crazy, drunken Texas broad is clearly unfit for office and should resign. ;D
-
I agree it's a witch hunt. But there is no such thing as liberal law. There is the law. If conservatives disagree, they should change the law.
Governors cannot be activists with law violations. Suppose California's governor decided tomorrow to ban all guns. You'd like him to be indicted for that, right?
Perry will skate on this. But the moment you allow repub govs to break law, you allow dems to do it also.
Think long term. Think of what happens once you allow one abuse.
QFT
-
Perry is well within his authority to veto and it doesn't matter why he is doing it.
The left has no legal standing on this issue. It is all political. That is all what this is.
This will be thrown out of court in no time.
-
and kiss the female voters away.
Not quite. Perry will have the white married women's vote. Assuming he is running for president, if he solidifies that along with the working-class white male vote, he wins.
-
and kiss the female voters away.
If they rather support a hypocritical drunken fat whore over common sense and dignity, then laws need to be changed to take away women's right to vote.
Anyone who votes based on pure emotion should be exempt from voting.
-
and kiss the female voters away.
::)
-
After listening to 240 blather on about "the law"...I just had to post this whole thing. From Ace of spades and other links...
If you want the cliff notes this is it.....hahahahahahahahha haha....
Patterico's In Depth Legal Analysis of Rick Perry's Indictment
And he finds the arguments in the indictment so flawed that they should aspire to mere groundlessness in a future life. The Travis county prosecutor claims that not only is Perry's threat of a veto a felony but his actual veto is also a felony. Needless to say Texas law and the Texas Constitution disagree with these unusual legal theories.
First on the coercion of a public servant charges:
So the law can't be that broad, and in fact, the statute has an exception:
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.
Under Article 4 of the Texas Constitution, Rick Perry is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, and thus a member of the Executive Department of the State. That sounds like a "governing body" to me. Doesn't he fall within this exception? Certainly his veto does.
In fact, I think such a threat falls squarely within the exception for "deliberations" by the governing body. "Deliberations" include discussions about whether an action is going to be taken, including bargaining over whether an action is going to be taken. That bargaining, as long as it is not legally bribery, includes things like logrolling, horse trading - and yes, even "threats." ("If you don't vote for this tax exemption, I will lobby every member of this body to kill the military base in your district, and your political career will be OVER!!!")
Which leads us to the second problem with this count: the First Amendment.
...The Court said - and this quote is very, very important, so pay attention here: "Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression." The court said that the statute (back when it lacked the exception discussed above) violated the First Amendment, because it was too vague to put the judge on notice as to when her use of lawful authority to coerce lawful action might be considered to violate the statute.
Volokh says this case appears to govern Perry's situation, and I agree. To the extent that Perry's actions do not fall within the statutory exception - and I think they do - the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates the First Amendment.
Which is a really long way of saying: threatening a veto is a not a felony.
And furthermore in the second charge the prosecutor asserts that Perry's veto itself was a crime:
How does the indictment claim that Perry "misused" government property? Here's what it says, and I am not making this up. It says Perry, "with intent to harm" Lehmberg and her Public Integrity Unit,
intentionally or knowingly misused government property by dealing with such property contrary to an agreement under which defendant held such property or contrary to the oath of office he took as a public servant, such government property being monies in excess of $200,000 which were approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to fund the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney's [here the indictment is cut off in every version I have seen, and resumes on page two with the following language, which itself is cut off and almost unreadable] defendant's office as a public servant, namely, Governor of the State of Texas.
Applying a statute directed at a public official's misuse of government funds to a veto of public funds is even more bizarre. Under such a theory, once the Legislature appropriates funds, then they are "held" by the Governor, and if he vetoes their appropriation (and does so with an "intent to harm" the people who were supposed to get the money), that is a "misuse" of public funds - a first degree felony that could send him to state prison, theoretically for the rest of his life. (The punishment would be determined by a left-leaning Travis County jury.) What is the authority for treating public appropriations as property held by the governor? I am aware of none and would be shocked if the statute were interpreted that way.
Which is a long way of saying: issuing a veto is not a felony.
The indictment against Perry is such a groundless, utterly shameless criminalization of politics that the prosecutor, Michael McCrum, and Travis County as a whole should be mercilessly mocked, insulted, and made to feel the pain for supporting officials willing to run the criminal justice system like a banana republic. Here is the letter that Patterico, an prosecutor himself, sent to McCrum:
Mr. McCrum,
You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. This prosecution is a joke. It is perhaps one of the most outrageous abuses of power by a prosecutor I have heard of in years. I'm a prosecutor myself - writing you on my own and not speaking for my office - and I just want you to know that your actions tar good prosecutors everywhere. Thank God you never became U.S. Attorney. I hope you lose quickly and are drummed out of public life in disgrace.
Patrick Frey
Los Angeles
The Perry Indictment: A Travesty of a Mockery
Things You Might Not Know About Travis County Prosecutor Michael McCrum
Apart from other pending misconduct allegations you have this suspicious coincidence:
The next year [2008], he [McCrum] contributed $500 to Republican Robert "Bert" Richardson, a Bexar County district court judge. Richardson assigned McCrum as the special prosecutor after a watchdog group filed its abuse-of-office complaint against Perry.
-
You mean the law is the law and he broke the law according to liberal law? I read he was well within his constitutional legal rights as far as veto power. But, the left is going to interpret it they way they want as long as that fag Obama has the judicial system in his pocket. The entire poltical left are vial pieces of shit. This is what happends when they can't possibly win or argue issues.
I think the special prosecutor appointed to look into it makes the "it's a witch hunt" claim weak. The problem is, he (Perry) combined his action with a threat. Do this or I will do that... An indictment doesn't mean a conviction, it means there is enough there to warrant a trial to determine guilt or not. The irony of Perry calling it political is not lost on most of us as his actions were political as well. Had Lemhberg been a republican, Perry wouldn't have said a word in my opinion.
-
So this woman was the head of a Public Policy group and was arrested and convicted for drunk driving? And perry wanted her to step down or he would veto their funding? And they are suing PERRY for this??
Lol am i missing something here?
This is the dumbest stunt ive ever seen..they are taking the side of the arrested public official drunk driver...talk about bad politics.
The libs always seem to defend the criminal.
-
So this woman was the head of a Public Policy group and was arrested and convicted for drunk driving? And perry wanyed her to step down or he would veto their funding? And they are suing PERRY for this??
Lol am i missing something here?
This is the dumbest stunt ive ever seen..they are taking the side of the arrested public official drunk driver...talk about bad politics.
The libs always seem to defend the criminal.
Yeah, you are missing the major point.. There was nothing wrong with him wanting her to step down. I wanted her to step down. It was when he tied funding into his demand to step down..Right or wrong? The courts will decide
-
If it is legally within his position to be able to veto it, which seems to be the case, then it will get thrown out.
Its funny how the travis county libs behind this dont seem to mind when obama openly and frequently operates outside his authority.
-
If it is legally within his position to be able to veto it, which seems to be the case, then it will get thrown out.
Its funny how the travis county libs behind this dont seem to mind when obama openly and frequently operates outside his authority.
I can legally fire a subordinate. I can legally ask a subordinate out on a date. I can't legally fire a subordinate because she said no when I asked her out on a date.
Hope this helps
-
I can legally fire a subordinate. I can legally ask a subordinate out on a date. I can't legally fire a subordinate because she said no when I asked her out on a date.
Hope this helps
Not really the same thing
-
attaching a threat (coercion) to the veto is the entire legal question. I'm no lawyer so I'll step aside and let the courts figure out if it is okay
-
Its not really a 'threat', any person with common sense would find his actions reasonable.
The woman was in charge of a Public Corruption unit, which is supposed to look into matters of ethics of public officials...she herself then gets Arrested and Convicted for driving with 3 times the legal limit of booze in her system. She proceeds to struggle with the cops, laying into them and trying to use her position (brutal irony lol) to scare them, writhes around drunk and the whole spectacle is caught on video and aired for all to see.
What governor WOULDNT demand her resignation from her position??
Its very interesting how she still has her job, and there was never any pressure from the democrats to get her to step down. They never seem to call out their own, no matter what they do. In fact, they are now working on behalf of the disgraced convicted public official, by trying to sue the man for doing his job. Unbelievable...
-
Great summary of situation, featuring Democrats who say this whole thing is stupid:
http://humanevents/2014/08/18/rick-perry-gets-a-taste-of-democrat-lawfare/ (http://humanevents/2014/08/18/rick-perry-gets-a-taste-of-democrat-lawfare/)
-
If it is legally within his position to be able to veto it, which seems to be the case, then it will get thrown out.
Its funny how the travis county libs behind this dont seem to mind when obama openly and frequently operates outside his authority.
You know what it looks like to me?
It looks like dems have the balls to try to impeach/indict/remove Perry.
But repubs DONT have the balls to impeach obama for his crimes, which are much more serious.
I do not get it. I just don't. "Maybe we'll win more seats in congress?"
Without any real reasoning behind it... aside from "people will feel sorry for obama when they see dead bodies from benghazi and F&F and will vote dem". Which makes no sense to me.
-
The Repubs realize that they will not only not win an impeachment trial, they'll loose the senate, could loose the house and would loose in 2016. Instead they'll control congress, try and fix Obamacare if not outright repeal it, stop liberal immigration reform and have a good shot at 2016. Do the math 240. They only have the house...neither the public nor the media support this. Without those two its not happening.
-
The Repubs realize that they will not only not win an impeachment trial, they'll loose the senate, could loose the house and would loose in 2016. Instead they'll control congress, try and fix Obamacare if not outright repeal it, stop liberal immigration reform and have a good shot at 2016. Do the math 240. They only have the house...neither the public nor the media support this. Without those two its not happening.
WHY would they lose the senate/house because of impeachment?
You're telling me people would look at the dead bodies from F&F and Benghazi, look at obama actions/inaction during these events....
and they'd feel SORRY for him and vote dem? That's what I keep hearing from Repubs, and I DO NOT BUY IT.
I don't know anyone who is a repub that'd see obama's crimes and say "Ya know, I like that hussein obama after all". I don't know anyone who is a moderate who looks at dead bodies of brave americans, sees obama's role, and says "I like a guy that stays out of the way in things like benghazi, let's vote dem this fall".
It's trading possible (and improbable) political gains for JUSTICE for obama and holder. I don't get it.
-
Are you fucking serious.......the damm country was in the shitter in 2012 and these idiots still voted for Obama. Romney was right then and still right and yet Obama is president. The media is in the tank for him and all we will hear...ALL WE WILL HEAR IS THAT WHITEY IS OUT TO GET THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! Anybody crying about F@F or Bengazi except the Right?..anybody? Most people are having a hard enough time paying their bills...and want continued hand outs. The Repubs aren't giving them hand outs...Obama is. They don't want the gravy train to stop. The repubs want Congress...you get congress atleast you can win the impeachment proceedings should you go that route.
-
Are you fucking serious.......the damm country was in the shitter in 2012 and these idiots still voted for Obama. Romney was right then and still right and yet Obama is president. The media is in the tank for him and all we will hear...ALL WE WILL HEAR IS THAT WHITEY IS OUT TO GET THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! Anybody crying about F@F or Bengazi except the Right?..anybody? Most people are having a hard enough time paying their bills...and want continued hand outs. The Repubs aren't giving them hand outs...Obama is. They don't want the gravy train to stop. The repubs want Congress...you get congress atleast you can win the impeachment proceedings should you go that route.
Dude, this race thing...
obama's approval ratings were thru the roof in 2008. 70%
Hilary's approval ratings were low, 35% in 2008.
Yet Hilary pushed him down to ONE state for the nomination, remember? She wins one more, she gets nomination.
I don't think obama is as popular as repubs give him credit for.
Who gives a rip if MSNBC (which onbody watches anyway, right?) cites race as the reason. every time they say that, you hold up a picture of a dead american from benghazi. See how flimsy that race bullshit gets when we're talking about RED - american blood spilled.
If the reasoning behind not impeaching is "handouts", well, hey, repubs will never win an election again. If that's where it's going, call it a day lol. No repub can win with "I'mma take everything away!"
-
Dude, this race thing was created and perpetuated by the democratic party.
Fixed.
-
240 likes to pretend obama was/is a standard old white man politician and not a celebrity/pop culture and historical icon.
He transcends politics...he cannot be treated as if he was just a regular white politician. Standard politics dont apply to him. He was never gonna lose in 2012, just like hes NEVER gonna get impeached, and everyone knew/knows this.
-
He was never gonna lose in 2012, just like hes NEVER gonna get impeached, and everyone knew/knows this.
Romney and particuarly Rover, were outright SHOCKED when he didn't win in 2012.
There were PLENTY of people thinking obama would lose. Intrade even cut to 51% for Romney for the first time.
The reason he's not getting impeached? Repubs are scared of obama, to be honest. I don't buy that it's due to skin color... or the repubs would have united behind Cain in 2012 and defeated the unpopular obama.
-
Dude, this race thing...
obama's approval ratings were thru the roof in 2008. 70%
Hilary's approval ratings were low, 35% in 2008.
Yet Hilary pushed him down to ONE state for the nomination, remember? She wins one more, she gets nomination.
I don't think obama is as popular as repubs give him credit for.
240, What Coach and so many others don't seem to get, is that it's not about "How popular Obama is" as much as it is "How UNpopular many Republicans have become" for their complicity in actions & policies enacted by Obama's administration that have been deemed unacceptable by some. The same level of hostility will never be directed towards his fellow Dems who are also deemed complicitous because they are Dems. It is the reality that the supposed opponents are merely actors in some theatrical farce is what's stirring the UNpopularity of the Republicans amongst their own. It's like that moment when SC realized the Republican hierarchy never intended for Romney to reside in the oval office. They only wanted someone who could stop Ron Paul from taking the Presidency from before America was steered away from the train wreck the elite already intend for her to experience. Karma is a BIYOTCH!!!!
-
240, What Coach and so many others don't seem to get, is that it's not about "How popular Obama is" as much as it is "How UNpopular many Republicans have become" for their complicity in actions & policies enacted by Obama's administration that have been deemed unacceptable by some. The same level of hostility will never be directed towards his fellow Dems who are also deemed complicitous because they are Dems. It is the reality that the supposed opponents are merely actors in some theatrical farce is what's stirring the UNpopularity of the Republicans amongst their own. It's like that moment when SC realized the Republican hierarchy never intended for Romney to reside in the oval office. They only wanted someone who could stop Ron Paul from taking the Presidency from before America was steered away from the train wreck the elite already intend for her to experience. Karma is a BIYOTCH!!!!
Are you retarded?
-
Are you fucking serious.......the damm country was in the shitter in 2012 and these idiots still voted for Obama. Romney was right then and still right and yet Obama is president. The media is in the tank for him and all we will hear...ALL WE WILL HEAR IS THAT WHITEY IS OUT TO GET THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! Anybody crying about F@F or Bengazi except the Right?..anybody? Most people are having a hard enough time paying their bills...and want continued hand outs. The Repubs aren't giving them hand outs...Obama is. They don't want the gravy train to stop. The repubs want Congress...you get congress atleast you can win the impeachment proceedings should you go that route.
Wait are you complaining that Benghazi wasn't covered enough? it's put to bed you nutter. The fact that you want to waste time on peripheral issues is the main issue.