Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sluggo
    started a topic Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Not sure what to make of this mess, but it will be interesting to see Perry have to submit for booking and a mugshot for this indictment.

    It looks like Perry abused his powers but I am not sure I buy the charges as said in the complaint. (There is a link in the CNN article to the complaint.) The timing of this is more suspect that Perry's said actions in dealing with this Democratic DA, and those actions.

    What do USPOL'ers have to say about this one as this looks like typical Texas politics to me?

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted on two felony charges

    (CNN) -- A grand jury has indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, saying he abused his power by trying to pressure a district attorney to resign.

    The two felony counts against Perry, a Republican, stem from his threat to veto funding for a statewide public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg unless she stepped down, the special prosecutor in the case, Michael McCrum, said Friday.

    Perry attorney David L. Botsford on Friday called the indictment a "political abuse of the court system." He said the action "violated the separation of powers" and "sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a grand jury to punish the exercise of a lawful and constitutional authority afforded to the Texas governor."

    CNN affiliate KVUE reported that Perry will have to report to the Travis County Jail in the capital of Austin to be booked, fingerprinted and have his photo made for a mugshot.

    Perry is expected to make a statement from the state capitol at 2 p.m. CT (3 p.m. ET) Saturday, his office said.

    Perry can continue to serve as governor while under indictment, KVUE reported. His attorneys could seek to have the charges thrown out, a motion that would delay the case, at the very least.

    The grand jury in Travis County indicted the governor on charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of his official capacity.

    The charges have serious political implications, both in Texas and beyond. Perry is entering his final few months in office after a historic 14-year run in Austin.

    ...

    According to McCrum, the indictment alleges that the circumstances around Perry's veto threat amounted to a misuse of state money earmarked by the Legislature to fund the public integrity unit in Travis County run by Lehmberg.

    The second charge alleges that he improperly used the veto threat to get her to resign following her arrest on a drunk driving charge. She stayed in office.

    "I'm ready to go forward (in) my task as district attorney. In this case, the grand jury has spoken and I'm going forward to carry out the duties that have been bestowed upon me," McCrum said.

    "I feel confident about the charges that have been filed," he added.

    Mary Anne Wiley, general counsel for Perry's office, said the "veto in question was made in accordance" with the authority "afforded to every governor" under the state's constitution.
    Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted - CNN.com

  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    If we forced all who get drunk out of office we would have had to get rid of most of the politicians and generals. So, that is a no go. It is a poor excuse you are trying to use here oldman. Churchhill would have been kicked out of office, before he ever took it. LOL.

    What about the founding fathers? You ever see that list of the booze they had when they were meeting? From the looks of it, they were a helluva bunch of drunks. Looks like Perry is un-American. LOL Nice try though.
    The dust-up is not about getting all drunks out of office.

    This is all over Rick Perry observing that Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had disgraced her office by not only drinking and driving, but then kicking and spitting at the officer(s) who arrested her. See Post #2 from eohrnberger that recounts her behavior on the night of her arrest, which notes in relevant part:
    ...There was an open bottle of vodka in Lehmberg’s car on the night of her arrest, in violation of the state’s open container law.

    In the video, Lehmberg taunts the arresting officers and even threatens them. One of the officers describes action that took place off camera, in which Lehmberg kicked doors and acted violently.
    Rick Perry would have loved to resolve this issue quietly and out of the spotlight, but it was Rosemary who dug her heels in and made it national news. Perry's only "sin" here, if you can call it that, is announcing he would veto her department's budget money if she did not step down. NOTHING wrong with that and completely within the purview of his job responsibilities.

    So it's not OldmanDan "trying to use" anything here. The facts of this case focuses exclusively on this one case.

    Now, you and I might agree IF someone DID start a movement trying to rid ourselves of all drunks in office.... Hmmmmm: Rid us of all drunks you say? now THAT is an interesting idea...

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    If we forced all who get drunk out of office we would have had to get rid of most of the politicians and generals. So, that is a no go. It is a poor excuse you are trying to use here oldman. Churchhill would have been kicked out of office, before he ever took it. LOL.

    What about the founding fathers? You ever see that list of the booze they had when they were meeting? From the looks of it, they were a helluva bunch of drunks. Looks like Perry is un-American. LOL Nice try though.
    Did Churchill do this?



    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    He wanted to force the DA who is a drunk out of office. And rightly so. She is the one abusing her power by going after Perry.
    If we forced all who get drunk out of office we would have had to get rid of most of the politicians and generals. So, that is a no go. It is a poor excuse you are trying to use here oldman. Churchhill would have been kicked out of office, before he ever took it. LOL.

    What about the founding fathers? You ever see that list of the booze they had when they were meeting? From the looks of it, they were a helluva bunch of drunks. Looks like Perry is un-American. LOL Nice try though.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    And that too is partisan politics speaking, for texas is a red state, right? But the office is in a democratic area. And so it means democrats are running that office, and since the state is mostly republican, this means more republicans are gone after for ethic violations, but this is perceived as partisanship on behalf of the dems. When one views reality through partisan blinders, it is predictable as to what their perception of reality is. LOL. Which is why I have always said, partisanship requires non objectivity. Partisanship depends upon non objectivity for its continuance, and this is just how it works. It thrives on bias and predjudice, and objectivity destroys it.

    Yet what is the objective view here in regards to Perry? He wanted to force the DA who was a democrat out of office, but had no power to do that, directly. So, what did he do? He vetoed funding from a department that went after ethic violations, that was operated from this DA's office, thereby trying to force her out. He didn't force her out but hurt the ability of the state to look into violations, that since this is a red state, were mostly republicans. So, in his attempt to force someone out, he affected the operation of gov't in doing its duties to protect the people from scumbags who held office. He effectively hurt the ability of investigation and enforcement that would have affected people in his own party. And that looks to me like it should be illegal, and the guy should be punished for using his power to go after an individual that he didn't like and who was not a republican.

    If he gets away with this, it undermines what gov't is supposed to be, and turns it into another tool to go after those we do not like who is in the other party. This sounds like what goes on in south America or other areas where the rule of law is a joke.
    He wanted to force the DA who is a drunk out of office. And rightly so. She is the one abusing her power by going after Perry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    In Texas, they call that office the TRAVISty of justice.
    And that too is partisan politics speaking, for texas is a red state, right? But the office is in a democratic area. And so it means democrats are running that office, and since the state is mostly republican, this means more republicans are gone after for ethic violations, but this is perceived as partisanship on behalf of the dems. When one views reality through partisan blinders, it is predictable as to what their perception of reality is. LOL. Which is why I have always said, partisanship requires non objectivity. Partisanship depends upon non objectivity for its continuance, and this is just how it works. It thrives on bias and predjudice, and objectivity destroys it.

    Yet what is the objective view here in regards to Perry? He wanted to force the DA who was a democrat out of office, but had no power to do that, directly. So, what did he do? He vetoed funding from a department that went after ethic violations, that was operated from this DA's office, thereby trying to force her out. He didn't force her out but hurt the ability of the state to look into violations, that since this is a red state, were mostly republicans. So, in his attempt to force someone out, he affected the operation of gov't in doing its duties to protect the people from scumbags who held office. He effectively hurt the ability of investigation and enforcement that would have affected people in his own party. And that looks to me like it should be illegal, and the guy should be punished for using his power to go after an individual that he didn't like and who was not a republican.

    If he gets away with this, it undermines what gov't is supposed to be, and turns it into another tool to go after those we do not like who is in the other party. This sounds like what goes on in south America or other areas where the rule of law is a joke.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishjoel
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    She actually got off easy on this DUI charge. She was kicking and spitting. Spitting on someone is assault and the rest of the stuff is obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    You know, to me this does look like an abuse of the office he holds, whether it is illegal or not to do this.

    For what actually happened? Perry didn't like the democrat, who got caught drunk and driving, and he is such a exemplar of morality that he took it upon himself to use his office and power to force her out, by cutting funding from one of the programs she resided over. And that program was one that went after the crooks in politics.

    So, he hurt the state, not the woman, by vetoing funding an important program in the justice system. He placed his own dislike and politics over the best interest of texas. I am not sure such a thing should be legal. Really, this takes the cake, IMO, and we should not allow it.

    So feeling like this, perhaps they should make an example out of the guy, so that others will not use their power to go after particular people in the other party that they do not like. When playing politics ends up wasting money and time, and tying up the justice system, we shouldn't allow it.

    This is indeed dirty pool, and we need to make such actions illegal, if not already. For there is something wrong about it, and not in the best interest of any state.

    If we put this man into the oval office, well, we already know how he operates. He has no qualms about hurting the people he is supposed to represent, if he wants to go after someone in politics he doesn't like.
    In Texas, they call that office the TRAVISty of justice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    This is becoming a real sad statement on the status of party politics in this nation (in this case, State.)


    Defiant Rick Perry at courthouse: 'We will prevail' - CNN.com
    You know, to me this does look like an abuse of the office he holds, whether it is illegal or not to do this.

    For what actually happened? Perry didn't like the democrat, who got caught drunk and driving, and he is such a exemplar of morality that he took it upon himself to use his office and power to force her out, by cutting funding from one of the programs she resided over. And that program was one that went after the crooks in politics.

    So, he hurt the state, not the woman, by vetoing funding an important program in the justice system. He placed his own dislike and politics over the best interest of texas. I am not sure such a thing should be legal. Really, this takes the cake, IMO, and we should not allow it.

    So feeling like this, perhaps they should make an example out of the guy, so that others will not use their power to go after particular people in the other party that they do not like. When playing politics ends up wasting money and time, and tying up the justice system, we shouldn't allow it.

    This is indeed dirty pool, and we need to make such actions illegal, if not already. For there is something wrong about it, and not in the best interest of any state.

    If we put this man into the oval office, well, we already know how he operates. He has no qualms about hurting the people he is supposed to represent, if he wants to go after someone in politics he doesn't like.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    perry.jpg

    Perry's PAC selling tee shirts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    IF a third party IS able to capitalize on the dealings of the other two ... that would REALLY be a sign of the end.


    I walked right into that one...

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    IF a third party IS able to capitalize on the dealings of the other two ... that would REALLY be a sign of the end.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    Agreed and I imagine Perry is having a difficult time keeping his counsel in check: They would want to get their motion filed as soon as possible: But Perry realizes he hasn't mined all the gold (or much of it) yet...

    at least that's how I imagine it. Perry's been in the news a lot lately so one can hardly quell the suspicion he is framing up another run at the nomination. That being the probability, here, I wonder if he did, in fact, learn from his failed 2012 run and will eventually present as a "changed man."

    Of course, witholding judgement, but it will be interesting (to me anyway) to see how (if) the 2016 candidate differs from the 2012 candidate. He does certainly seem to be capitalizing on the free press lately.

    Personally, I suspect this is another sign of the end of times.
    I see it as a golden opportunity for a 3rd party to capitalize on the dealings between the other two. Then again we are talking about Texas, and that flavor of politics is a rather painful one to watch.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    I agree, as someone who is not a fan of Perry I will say he has handled this very well. He could have ignored this and made it worse, but he got some "political mileage" out of showing up for the mugshot. Democrats may try to use that down the line but it was interesting to hear him suggest a willingness to fight this DA on her turf. Should be interesting assuming it even gets that far. I am sure Perry's team is drafting up motion to dismiss arguments right now, as they should.
    Agreed and I imagine Perry is having a difficult time keeping his counsel in check: They would want to get their motion filed as soon as possible: But Perry realizes he hasn't mined all the gold (or much of it) yet...

    at least that's how I imagine it. Perry's been in the news a lot lately so one can hardly quell the suspicion he is framing up another run at the nomination. That being the probability, here, I wonder if he did, in fact, learn from his failed 2012 run and will eventually present as a "changed man."

    Of course, witholding judgement, but it will be interesting (to me anyway) to see how (if) the 2016 candidate differs from the 2012 candidate. He does certainly seem to be capitalizing on the free press lately.

    Personally, I suspect this is another sign of the end of times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted?

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    But the REAL tragedy is, this will evaporate before he can get sufficient political mileage out of it... but that statement at the court house was a pretty good effort at gaining some of that political mileage.
    I agree, as someone who is not a fan of Perry I will say he has handled this very well. He could have ignored this and made it worse, but he got some "political mileage" out of showing up for the mugshot. Democrats may try to use that down the line but it was interesting to hear him suggest a willingness to fight this DA on her turf. Should be interesting assuming it even gets that far. I am sure Perry's team is drafting up motion to dismiss arguments right now, as they should.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X