Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1.    #1  
    President Bush wants to uphold the sanctity of marriage and today he stated he wants to improve US-Latin American relations. Well one of his house members is doing his part on both issues. Yesterday republican congressman Jerry Weller who is on a house committee overseeing Guatemalan affairs married the daughter of Efrain Rios Montt, the notorious Guatemalan dictator (now an evangelical Christian btw) currently under investgation for genocide in the killing hundreds of thousands of Mayan civilians. The daughter appears to have major ambitions to head her father's extremist party in the future.

    The congressman apparantly does not feel that he needs to step down from his foreign affairs committee post, the wedding took place in a high walled Guatemalan compound lined with razor wire, and I wonder where those lovebirds are going for their honeymoon?

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...emala_usa_dc_3

    comments?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/21/2004 at 02:37 PM.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    LOL

    This is truly embarrassing, and mostly to congressman Weller's constituents. Yet, congress, I hope, can see the conflict of interests here and strip Mr. Weller of his house committee's duties. Imagine a congressman maries the doughter of Sadam Hussein....
    Problem is that he's a Republican and they are in control of the House. They protected DeLay by rescinding ethics standards to catch Clinton. If this is the party of "Character Counts", perhaps they just count the money. Certainly no character evidenced by this party, imo.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  3. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Problem is that he's a Republican and they are in control of the House. They protected DeLay by rescinding ethics standards to catch Clinton. If this is the party of "Character Counts", perhaps they just count the money. Certainly no character evidenced by this party, imo.
    Nice try, but no. The Republicans rescinded their own (i.e. the Republican caucus) rule requiring REPUBLICAN leaders and committee chairmen to step down if they're indicted. They did this to protect Delay from Travis County, TX D.A. Ronnie Earle who has made his reputation via politically motivated indictments. The Democrats, for all of their wailing and gnashing of teeth, don't even have such a rule for their own members.
    Talldog
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    Nice try, but no. The Republicans rescinded their own (i.e. the Republican caucus) rule requiring REPUBLICAN leaders and committee chairmen to step down if they're indicted. They did this to protect Delay from Travis County, TX D.A. Ronnie Earle who has made his reputation via politically motivated indictments. The Democrats, for all of their wailing and gnashing of teeth, don't even have such a rule for their own members.
    Why should they protect someone that may face trial? It seems to be the Republicans talk out both sides of their mouth when they talk about politically motivated prosecutions. The most politically motivated prosecution was performed by Ken Starr.

    But it goes back to the "character counts" issue. If he didn't do anything wrong or unethical, then why should he need to be protected?
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    They did this to protect Delay from Travis County, TX D.A. Ronnie Earle who has made his reputation via politically motivated indictments.
    Earle has prosecuted 12 democrats and 4 republicans, he sounds real partisan to me.
  6. #6  
    He didn't say partisan. He said "politically motivated." On that issue, though, people need to remember it is a party rule, not a law or congressional rule. Furthermore (and I don't pretend to know the details of the case though I guess I should as I live in Houston), anyone can be indicted. The burden of proof is basically non-existent. If he were to be convicted, I trust his **** would be on the curb quickly. Until then, though, a party can conduct internal politics as it sees fit.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Earle has prosecuted 12 democrats and 4 republicans, he sounds real partisan to me.
    And where or when did taildog say the he was partisan???

    I guess this is why like to read these off topic threads. It makes me laugh to see how people can read into anything what they want to hear to support their point of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Why should they protect someone that may face trial? It seems to be the Republicans talk out both sides of their mouth when they talk about politically motivated prosecutions. The most politically motivated prosecution was performed by Ken Starr.
    So, given your line of reasoning, would you say then that Bill Clinton should have stepped down when he faced trial for perjury?

    Let me review the logic here...

    Proof #1...
    1. The Republicans puts their own on notice by making a rule that only affects Republicans, which tries to make their members more accountable for their actions. The rule amounts to a "no tolerance rule" for prosecutorial involvement.

    2. The Republicans realize that the rule leaves them unreasonably vulnerable to bogus political attack, so they repeal the rule.

    3. Therefore the Republicans are unethical, characterless, and corrupt to the bone.

    Proof #2...
    1. Democrats have no rule and never had a similar self monitoring rule, which holds their members ethically accountable.

    2. Therefore they rise above Republicans in the arena of ethics, character, etc.

    Looks logical to me.
  8. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Earle has prosecuted 12 democrats and 4 republicans, he sounds real partisan to me.
    I didn't say he was a blind partisan. I said he has made his reputation via politically motivated prosecutions. And he has.
    Talldog
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    I didn't say he was a blind partisan. I said he has made his reputation via politically motivated prosecutions. And he has.
    Well, I stand corrected, and I see that both you and Johnbh have more sense than the texas republican party who do slander him as an extreme partisan.

    http://www.texasgop.org/features/earle.php

    But it is a nice distraction from having to talk about the subject of this thread
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/22/2004 at 11:38 AM.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Back to the original post and its implications. What do you, especially the Republicans/conservatives folks, think should be done with the congressman?
    Well, it goes to show how blind love really is.

    I personally think it is too early to judge. While he hasn't done anything wrong, except perhaps in judgement, on the surface with what little I know, I think there may be enough of a conflict of interest to warrant him stepping down from the Western Hemisphere Affairs committee or anything else that might have dealings with Guatemala.

    Unlike some on this board who want to use him as a poster boy for everything wrong with the Republicans, I need more information and more time to let this play out.
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Well, it goes to show how blind love really is.

    I personally think it is too early to judge. While he hasn't done anything wrong, except perhaps in judgement, on the surface with what little I know, I think there may be enough of a conflict of interest to warrant him stepping down from the Western Hemisphere Affairs committee or anything else that might have dealings with Guatemala.

    Unlike some on this board who want to use him as a poster boy for everything wrong with the Republicans, I need more information and more time to let this play out.
    What more do you need to know, their wedding gift registry?
    (a joke)
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Well, it goes to show how blind love really is.

    I personally think it is too early to judge. While he hasn't done anything wrong, except perhaps in judgement, on the surface with what little I know, I think there may be enough of a conflict of interest to warrant him stepping down from the Western Hemisphere Affairs committee or anything else that might have dealings with Guatemala.

    Unlike some on this board who want to use him as a poster boy for everything wrong with the Republicans, I need more information and more time to let this play out.
    seriously, I am glad that you can admit that there may be something wrong here. It will be interesting to see if the republican house thinks the same.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    And where or when did taildog say the he was partisan???

    I guess this is why like to read these off topic threads. It makes me laugh to see how people can read into anything what they want to hear to support their point of view.

    So, given your line of reasoning, would you say then that Bill Clinton should have stepped down when he faced trial for perjury?

    Let me review the logic here...

    Proof #1...
    1. The Republicans puts their own on notice by making a rule that only affects Republicans, which tries to make their members more accountable for their actions. The rule amounts to a "no tolerance rule" for prosecutorial involvement.

    2. The Republicans realize that the rule leaves them unreasonably vulnerable to bogus political attack, so they repeal the rule.

    3. Therefore the Republicans are unethical, characterless, and corrupt to the bone.

    Proof #2...
    1. Democrats have no rule and never had a similar self monitoring rule, which holds their members ethically accountable.

    2. Therefore they rise above Republicans in the arena of ethics, character, etc.

    Looks logical to me.
    I feel you missed the essence of my post. It had nothing to do with whether President Clinton should have stepped down. It dealt with politically motivated prosecutions (or, persecutions, if you so desire).

    When President Clinton was in office, it was Ken Starr going after him relentlessly. I would hope you would admit, at least a little, that this was a politically motivated prosecution. Centered for the most part on ethics.

    Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans feel it is unfair that a politically motivated prosecutor goes after one of their own. This is that proverbial, "what goes around comes around" issue and the Republicans now have the target painted on thier party leaders ... not the Democrats.

    If character really counts for the Republicans, where is the outcry about Tom DeLay? When he didn't get his way with the redistricting in Texas because the Democrats flew out of the state to defeat the proposal, what did he do? He called Homeland Security to track down the plane. If any Democrat would have done this, the outcry form the Republicans would have been thunderous.

    This is absolutley about walking your talk. The Republicans talk a great game about ethics, but when it comes time to have apply to them they find convenient ways to get around it.

    johnbdh, you are a smart and articulate man. All I ask is that you look at this with an open mind and look at the bigger picture. Ethical behavior is ethical behavior ... if you demand it from your party's adversaries, then you need to stand up to the light and take it all on yourself as well.

    Richard Nixon was castigated when he left office. Now, 30 years later we tend to look more kindly on his Presidency and the things he accomplished. With what has happened in the last 4 years, and what will happen in the next 4, do you think history will treat President Bush kindly? IMO, this will become the 8 years that will trump the madness in President Johnson's Administration (vis a vis, Vietman) and the 6 years of President Nixon. I'm willing to guess that the years 2000 -- 2008 will become a dark period in Republican party history. A sad statement for such a strong party.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    seriously, I am glad that you can admit that there may be something wrong here. It will be interesting to see if the republican house thinks the same.
    Sorry, I did not say that thee may be something wrong. I said that there appeared to be enough of a conflict of interest to warrant him stepping down. There is no admission of wrong doing in that statement.

    The tone and tenor of your statements make me believe that there is no question in your mind and if the Republicans don't give him up they will live up to your expectations.

    I prefer to neither condemn nor defend at this time, but to wait to see what transpires. Perhaps there is no conflict, but it sure looks like it.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    I feel you missed the essence of my post. It had nothing to do with whether President Clinton should have stepped down. It dealt with politically motivated prosecutions (or, persecutions, if you so desire).
    I was simply pointing out that using your reasoning, President Clinton should have stepped down. You asked why the Republicans should protect someone who was facing trial, implying that they shouldn't and should force him to step down. With that reasoning then, putting Clinton in the same situation, he should have been asked to step down by the Democrats. I don't think I missed anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    When President Clinton was in office, it was Ken Starr going after him relentlessly. I would hope you would admit, at least a little, that this was a politically motivated prosecution. Centered for the most part on ethics.
    I would only admit that to Clinton's opponents on the right side of the aisle it was, as everything is to them, absolutely political, but they were not the prosecutor. Ken Star was, and he was charged with investigating a legal issue, was President Clinton, a sitting President, guilty of perjury. I believe Ken Star did his job and did it well. You can demonize Ken Star as a political hack, but the results of his investigation did find the President guilty and did punish him. No more, no less.

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans feel it is unfair that a politically motivated prosecutor goes after one of their own. This is that proverbial, "what goes around comes around" issue and the Republicans now have the target painted on thier party leaders ... not the Democrats.
    If Ken Delay is guilty of breaking the law he will be prosecuted and pay the price. For the republicans to protect their own, and specifically the position he holds, has nothing to with fairness, ethics, or anything else, other than political survival 101. Delay's problem is funding, campaign or otherwise. In today's screwed up world of politics it takes money and getting that money is like walking a tight rope over a mine field. Democrats and Republicans alike are completely vulnerable and can easily make mistakes that will test the legal barriers. Ask Al Gore and the Chinese.

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    If character really counts for the Republicans, where is the outcry about Tom DeLay? When he didn't get his way with the redistricting in Texas because the Democrats flew out of the state to defeat the proposal, what did he do? He called Homeland Security to track down the plane. If any Democrat would have done this, the outcry form the Republicans would have been thunderous.
    Ethics does not require an accused or his peers to cry out with self flagellation. It does allow for defending ones self. If found guilty, on the other hand it demands that one willingly accept the findings and punishment with honor. Delay has not been indicted yet, let alone found guilty of anything. What outcry do you want to hear from the Republicans?

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    This is absolutley about walking your talk. The Republicans talk a great game about ethics, but when it comes time to have apply to them they find convenient ways to get around it.
    With regard to Tom Delay, exactly what have the Republicans done to get around anything. What ethics game have they skirted here. They have done nothing to prevent Tom Delay from being indicted and prosecuted. They have simply moved to keep a position from being vacated should he be indicted, recognizing that the rule was at the least impractical. Indictment does not mean guilty!

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    All I ask is that you look at this with an open mind and look at the bigger picture. Ethical behavior is ethical behavior ... if you demand it from your party's adversaries, then you need to stand up to the light and take it all on yourself as well.
    I think I am looking at this with an open mind. You are right ethical behavior is ethical behavior, but until Tom Delay is indicted and proven to have violated the law or the ethics of his position, the Republicans have every right, and obligation, to support him and protect his position, just as the Democrats did Clinton during that debacle. A closed mind would assume guilt the instant allegations fly.

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    With what has happened in the last 4 years, and what will happen in the next 4, do you think history will treat President Bush kindly? IMO, this will become the 8 years that will trump the madness in President Johnson's Administration (vis a vis, Vietman) and the 6 years of President Nixon. I'm willing to guess that the years 2000 -- 2008 will become a dark period in Republican party history. A sad statement for such a strong party.
    Yes I really do think history will treat President Bush more than just kindly. Only time will tell. But really, tjd414, It must be awful to live with such a bleak pessimistic outlook on the world..... and you wonder why GW got the vote?
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Sorry, I did not say that thee may be something wrong. I said that there appeared to be enough of a conflict of interest to warrant him stepping down. There is no admission of wrong doing in that statement.

    The tone and tenor of your statements make me believe that there is no question in your mind and if the Republicans don't give him up they will live up to your expectations.

    I prefer to neither condemn nor defend at this time, but to wait to see what transpires. Perhaps there is no conflict, but it sure looks like it.
    you say you don't agree there may be something wrong................. but at the same time you say it sure looks like a conflict of interest?

    Lets see if he remains in his foreign relations committee after congress reconvenes next year. I guess my expectations of the republican house are lower than yours, but I am willling to give them a chance.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/23/2004 at 08:04 AM.
  17. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    I feel you missed the essence of my post. It had nothing to do with whether President Clinton should have stepped down. It dealt with politically motivated prosecutions (or, persecutions, if you so desire).

    When President Clinton was in office, it was Ken Starr going after him relentlessly. I would hope you would admit, at least a little, that this was a politically motivated prosecution. Centered for the most part on ethics.
    Yes, it was politically motivated, but you seem to be missing a little history. It was the Democrats and radical feminists who developed the use of sexual harassment charges as a political weapon. Remember Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas? Remember all of the feminist bs about how "women never lie about these things" and "there's no such thing as consent where a superior and subordinate are involved"? And what was Thomas' sin? Telling dirty jokes in front of Anita Hill.

    Well, what goes around comes around, and it came around big time for Bill Clinton. Of course, he made it 100 times worse for himself by committing perjury and obstruction of justice while trying to cover it all up.
    Talldog
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    you say you don't agree there may be something wrong................. but at the same time you say it sure looks like a conflict of interest?
    A conflict of interest is a state. It is neither right or wrong. If a Judge discovers that the defendant is a long lost brother, he has a conflict of interest. He should, but does not have to, recuse (sp?) himself, but he does not have to if he thinks he can remain impartial. The defense attorney may request the judge recuse himself, and if the defendant is found guilty the case would most certainly be appealed because of the conflict. Throughout the whole process, however, the judge has done nothing wrong. If, in fact, the judge does allow himself to be partial towards his brother and rules accordingly, then he has done something wrong.

    In the particular case we are discussing, no wrong has done, yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Lets see if he remains in his foreign relations committee after congress reconvenes next year. I guess my expectations of the republican house are lower than yours, but I am willling to give them a chance.
    That's all I am doing as well, perhaps with a bit more confidence then you.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Yes I really do think history will treat President Bush more than just kindly. Only time will tell. But really, tjd414, It must be awful to live with such a bleak pessimistic outlook on the world..... and you wonder why GW got the vote?
    Things do not look good for Americans over the next 4 years, imo. Since the election, over 100 of OUR boys were killed. The Iraqis lost far fewer fighting in Falluja.

    Except for Great Britain, we are alone in world. Our reputation as a country has been tarnished and will take a great deal of work to bring the shine back. For the first time in our history, we invaded a country and to make things even worse, conditions in the country are worse today then when we went in.

    It's not the people I have concerns about. The American people are resilient and will get through what comes our way. It is our leadership with whom I have concerns.

    All in all, in 10 years, I believe we will be saying to ourselves, "What were we thinking?"
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    A conflict of interest is a state. It is neither right or wrong.
    As long as he is still on the foreign relations committee, and unless the facts prove otherwise, the conflict of interest IS the problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    That's all I am doing as well.
    that's not all I am doing, my congressional reps will hear about this too.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions