Why are Democrats throwing pies at opponents?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
He means the guests specifically invited by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I've heard Sean do that to his guests several times when he's not busy having callers patting him on the back.

My bad but the point still remains. A shows host determines much of the content. Similar to Matthews interview of John Oneil and Malkin.

[Q Classic]

Perhaps, but I don't think she's ever actually publically come out.

box lunches

bento boxes

box lunches

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

She needs videos.

[DRoseDARs]

I'm not reading through four pages to see if this was posted.

It's interesting to note that Coulter is railing about the DA having dropped the charges against her two "attackers" when it was, in fact her and the arresting officer's failure to appear in court, despite having received plenty of reminders. Moreover, the charges can be refiled and the attourney intends to do so. But Ann doesn't let the facts get in the way of her whining...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Sure, sure, Che. Flying planes into the White house is a plan of the Republican party and not the act of a lunatic.

And what is the difference between this event and the pie-throwing? (except for the damage, of course)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Ned, Ned, Ned, you still haven't answered my questions!

If someone was charging me in a public forum with a pie, odds are I'd prepare to defend myself. :shrugs:

So I've answered two of yours, and you still haven't answered two of mine. Maybe more. In this thread alone! Even.

Q, Coulter is not a brave man like yourself. She is a woman.

Second, if someone is charging you in a public speaking forum, I am not sure that you would know in advance what his or her intentions were. If they had a gun or knife, defending yourself, rather than running, might be a very bad idea.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
I'm not reading through four pages to see if this was posted.

It's interesting to note that Coulter is railing about the DA having dropped the charges against her two "attackers" when it was, in fact her and the arresting officer's failure to appear in court, despite having received plenty of reminders. Moreover, the charges can be refiled and the attourney intends to do so. But Ann doesn't let the facts get in the way of her whining...

Interesting

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

That's another favorite FFZ style tactic. When you lose the arguement you claim the other side is froathing at the mouth.

I hadn't even made an argument much less lost one.

Originally posted by Oerdin

I guess if facts aren't on your side then you have to take lame tactics like that. I'll I've said is Delay is a crook (he'll go to jail and you know it) and that the entire Republican leadership knew he was a crook but didn't care as long as he kept bringing in the dirty money. They were all sucking down his dirty money.

My side? I hope he's guilty and removed from office, the only reason that he isn't higher on my sh!t list is that there are so many deserving Pols still in office. That said, I don't know that he's actually guilty or that he'll be convicted much less actually do a Rostenkowski. Which is why he's being ripped by the Dems in the media for ethical lapses rather than by a prosecutor in a court of law. I'm not overwhelmed by the fact that his wife and daughter work for him for instance. That's really a weak charge. Now if he gets caught up in playing both sides against the middle to shake down Indians then I think he's finished.

As to what "the entire Republican leadership" knew, I don't think either of us has a serious claim that we could say one way or the other. Until he's hung out to dry by the facts however this claim is extremely weak. They knew that he was involved in activities for which he could not be prosecuted? So what?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

I was wrong about this bit and so are you. There are only one set of house rules and the majority party effectively gets to make them since you only need 50% plus one vote to approve them. The Republicans instituted this "if they are indicted then they're out" rule to show how clean they'd be in power. I guess that one didn't work out for them.

It would have worked out nicely if they'd managed to keep it.

[Patroklos]

The Republicans instituted this "if they are indicted then they're out" rule to show how clean they'd be in power.

Or maybe they realized that taking someones office away from them because they get involved in a process that concludes people or completely inoccent very often was a bad idea?

Obviously they couldn't win with you regardless.

[Q Classic]

Q, Coulter is not a brave man like yourself. She is a woman.

A wee bit sexist, are we?

I, a man, am nowhere near as brave of a person as say, my mother.

Second, if someone is charging you in a public speaking forum, I am not sure that you would know in advance what his or her intentions were. If they had a gun or knife, defending yourself, rather than running, might be a very bad idea.

1. I wouldn't know what their intentions were. So what?
2. It would be a very public statement if I were injured. If I survived, injured, I'd have people's support for the heinous attack, bolstering my case. If I survived, unharmed, I'd have people's support for standing my ground. If I expired from my injures, I'd have people's support for not turning tail and running, and also for my untimely demise.

Win-win-win, with some wins being better than others. :shrug:

[Ramo]

My side? I hope he's guilty and removed from office, the only reason that he isn't higher on my sh!t list is that there are so many deserving Pols still in office. That said, I don't know that he's actually guilty or that he'll be convicted much less actually do a Rostenkowski. Which is why he's being ripped by the Dems in the media for ethical lapses rather than by a prosecutor in a court of law. I'm not overwhelmed by the fact that his wife and daughter work for him for instance. That's really a weak charge. Now if he gets caught up in playing both sides against the middle to shake down Indians then I think he's finished.

DeLay's not just being ripped by Democrats in the media, but by investigative journalism in mainstream papers. If you've followed, say, coverage from the Austin-American Statesman (a paper that endorsed Dear Leader in both '00 and '04), you'd see that. Paying his wife and daughter exorbitant sums is pretty damn minor compared to some of the other "ethical lapses" that he's had.

Travis County DA Ronnie Earle (you certainly won't see Abott or Gonzales go after him) is methodically building up a case against him. White collar cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, particularly when the suspect is the second-most powerful person in the US gov't. Hopefully, a Tom Craddick indictment will come soon, and DeLay after that.

DeLay's not only one of the most corrupt politicians around, but he also controls Congress. That should put him on the top of everyone's **** list.

[Ned]

Ramo, I have heard of some goings-on in Texas but have not seen the details, either here or on TV. What are the allegations in the criminal complaint?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sikander

It would have worked out nicely if they'd managed to keep it.

I agree. To bad the entire party leadership decided to change the rules to protect Tom Delay. When some of the party's rank and file objected to their leadership's policy of blocking action against Delay's illegal acts those people were purged from the Ethics Committee.

It wasn't a matter of managing to keep the stronger ethics rules it was a matter of the Republican leadership deliberately changing the ethics rules in order to obstruct the legal process and keep Tom Delay's river of dirty money flowing into Republican pockets.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I agree. To bad the entire party leadership decided to change the rules to protect Tom Delay. When some of the party's rank and file objected to their leadership's policy of blocking action against Delay's illegal acts those people were purged from the Ethics Committee.

It wasn't a matter of managing to keep the stronger ethics rules it was a matter of the Republican leadership deliberately changing the ethics rules in order to obstruct the legal process and keep Tom Delay's river of dirty money flowing into Republican pockets.

Oerdin, do you think local prosecutors could be politically motivated in filing charges against prominent politicians of the other party? Is this even a remote possibility?

BTW, the people who siezed Limbaugh's records are democrats and openly acknowledge they are pursuing Limbaugh because of politics.