ericynot1 wrote: As is so often the case, Ransom, in an effort to tarnish Democrats, has twisted things and left out much of the interesting stuff about this story. The special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, who investigated this case against Perry, and took it to a grand jury, is anything but a political hack. He's an ex-cop (four years in Dallas and Arlington, TX) turned lawyer/ federal prosecutor who's known to be non-partisan (donates money to candidates from both parties, though more to Republicans), and was appointed by Bert Richardson, a Republican judge appointed by GW Bush. Brian Wice, Tom DeLay's attorney says he has "the utmost respect" for McCrum. The other thing Ransom did in this article is overlook the reason Perry wanted Rosemary Lehmberg gone from the Public Integrity Unit. Here's a hint: her drunk driving case was the excuse, not the reason. I'll stop by later to explain further if anyone here is interested in, as Paul Harvey was wont to say, "the rest of the story"-- Here America: Have Some More Filth to Go with that Government
Dear Comrade Y,
As usual, you’re an idiot. Only a liberal, Comrade Y, could come to a conclusion as wrong as yours.
Party affiliation doesn’t command absolute loyalty, especially in local politics. While the Democrats don’t like me in Colorado, there are more GOP types who hate my guts than there are liberals.
I don’t know what being an ex cop has to do with anything either. The cops I know aren’t saints, ex or otherwise. I’m also confused why McCrum’s campaign donations are somehow make him “apolitical” as he has been described often in the press. The fact that an ex prosecutor turned defense lawyer plays both sides of the political aisle in Texas—giving to both parties-- tells me the guy is up to his eyeballs in politics in Texas.
Apolitical would be no donations to either party.
Perhaps Perry didn’t support the guy when he tried to become US attorney. But here’s a fact: You don’t get recommended by both Dems and the GOP in congress to become US attorney unless you have some political muscle.
“Mr. McCrum was recommended by Democratic and GOP lawmakers in Congress in 2010 to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas,” writes the Wall Street Journal. “But he later withdrew from contention because the selection process dragged on too long.”
Yeah, right. “I wanted to become US Attorney, but I couldn’t wait”?
The dog ate his resume too.
Local politics are very much an intramural sport, with the nastiest fights going on amongst rivals from the same political party. So really there is very little in what you say to support the contention that this prosecution isn’t politically motivated.
The way I see it is that there are some in Texas who want to the kill public integrity unit in Travis County because it’s been used in that very liberal county to prosecute conservatives. Those opposed to it include Gov. Perry.
When the district attorney of Travis County-- Democrat Rosemary Lehmberg, who runs the public integrity unit-- got busted for DUI, Gov. Perry saw his chance to smack them around.
“There’s historical friction between Republicans and the public integrity unit,” writes the Texas Tribune, “which is a part of Lehmberg’s office. Travis County is predominantly Democratic, but the court complaint about Perry’s actions before and after he made good on removing funding for the public integrity unit wasn’t pursued by Lehmberg’s office or any of her Travis County prosecutors.”
The only crime that I see in this case is that a liberal DA got busted for drunk driving and somehow still has a job and a paycheck. Typical liberal.
And if THAT’S not political, I don’t know what is.
bigdawgworking wrote: "So: Both sides are stupid." Good writing, but dead wrong. The Democrats are smart to apply a system that works well for them. They consistently get 90 per cent or more of the black votes. And, because of that 90 per cent vote, the Democrats win elections that they could not otherwise win. Then, as you noted, they completely abuse the black people who vote Democrat. However, your statement would be true IF the Republicans actually read your articles and started applying the ideas in those articles towards getting black votes. Until the Republicans do that, the Democrats are looking pretty smart and the Republicans are looking dumber than rocks. -- The New Black Male Can Be Conservative
Dear BigDawg,
Then let’s hope the GOP wakes up.
I still think the liberals are stupid, however. You can’t permanently abuse your voters without there being consequences some day.
R27cj wrote:Mr. Ransom: I just cannot get 'with' your indignation over the plight of the black male. They have no one to blame but their own 'community', which has fostered a culture that defines manhood by gang activity and how many children by how many different women one has. And black leaders, from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Elijah Cummings, Charlie Rangel, et. al. as well as their white enables in the demorat party encourage it while enriching themselves in the process.Until the black community wises up and realizes they're being 'played', they will continue in their misery. -- The New Black Male Can Be Conservative
Dear R27cj,
Blacks didn’t impose slavery upon themselves, nor segregation, nor denial of civil rights. White society did that. And in doing so we interfered in the natural community that is created by families; families by the way that need to be headed by a father and a mother. This is a crime that is made worse by the welfare society that is largely imposed by whites on blacks as a kind of hush money that keeps the blacks in line and voting Democrat.
And if you think that we don’t have a responsibility to vigorously oppose it as conservatives, then you are part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
It does no good to turn around and blame a whole people for the misery they find themselves in.
Do blacks inside the community exploit the system? Yeah.
“I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people,” said British philosopher Edmund Burke, in his 1775 speech on conciliation with America.
A whole community can not be indicted for a crime committed by individuals.
Wise up conservatives.
dewed_rinse_cowboy wrote: Damn, John. You have to be either the most brainwashed or uninformed idiot in the country. The good ole Christian State - founded on the idea that the state's cruelty is condoned by some worthless god that only a fool could venerate. Keep writing. I love a good laugh in the morning.-- ‘Death to Israel, America’ Should Warrant Death Sentence
Dear Comrade Dewd,
I’m not sure what you are saying. But I can safely assume that you aren’t sure what you are saying either.
I’m guessing that you are saying that I’m brainwashed or uninformed because I venerate a God that can’t be proven to exist scientifically. Fair enough. But just because there is no scientific proof of God, doesn’t mean that He doesn’t exist. The world is full if things that exist that we have just discovered. That doesn’t mean that we will ever find proof of God’s existence nor even need to.
But I would say that the very fact of creation tends to support the notion that God exists.
In the beginning there was nothing, just a void, not even time and space. And out of something the size of an atom was created every galaxy in our universe, a universe that is amazingly large. 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone, with 200-300 billion galaxies in our universe in addition to our own.
Now tell me that God does not exist.
In the beginning there were only helium and hydrogen, plus some trace gases. And out of that was created every star, every planet, every element, every atom, and every person.
And you’d have me believe that this elegant simplicity of creation that took two gases and created everything tends to prove that God doesn’t exist?
Instead, you’d have me believe the universe we live in just “happened.”
A hypothesis that can not be disproved is still a working hypothesis, no matter what you want to believe about it.
Who is the one brainwashed here?
Miebel wrote: Yes are Republicans destroying us on purpose or are they just incompetence??? Like went they said before Obama was President that they would never work with him, yes like Republicans are really trying to destroy everything they touch, they just have a lot of hate for certain institution like SS, Medicare and the Schools, and they think they are smart enough to change it to the thing they have in their head which is nothing, is it possible to describe Republicans as a mental disease, yes........ Backward President Has It Backward…Again
Dear Comrade Miebel,
Are you even here legally? I only ask because your grasp of English indicates that you studied it at madras or perhaps some sort of a correspondence school.
Look, I don’t hate Social Security, Medicare or schools. They just don’t work.
Like most conservatives, I like things that have been proven over time to work.
In my lifetime an inordinate amount of political bandwidth has been dedicated to trying to get schools, Social Security and Medicare to work.
If you have some way of changing them so that they aren’t ideologically driven grab bags of political patronage, I’d love to hear it.
If not, then you may resume your studies.
Johnqpublic3 wrote: Obama hurting poor, sad, beleaguered Russian oligarchs.Friends of Putin who are only billionaires by ruthlessly exploiting their sale of formerly state-owned assets through cronyism and bribery. Whose side is Townhall on? Putin's or America's?-- Obama’s War on Billionaires
Dear Comrade Q,
I didn’t know that our federal government actually has authority over Russian property, but since Obama tries to expand the constitution to everything else, I’m not surprised that you think it extends to the Russian federation.
Perhaps he can raise taxes on Germany, France and Russia too, to help pay for his social programs.
I’m sure that I’ve spent more time studying what happened in Russia with the sale of government assets than you have. Was it deplorable? Yep. Was it illegal? Perhaps. But I do know that Russian laws don’t apply here in the US and that US laws don’t apply in Russia.
Doctor Roy wrote: Anyone but Obama's, John Q. I would think that Russian oligarch's might be the least sympathetic figures on the planet but if it comes down to them vs. Obama well you don't have to be Kreskin to guess which one good ol' TH will side with. Call me crazy but I couldn't imagine a worse President than Dubya and if it came down to him or Putey Pute and his cronies I'm going with the American Plutocrat. But these guys don't see it that way.They need some help with their Obama Derangement Syndrome. -- Obama’s War on Billionaires
Dear Comrade Doctor,
I like neither Russian oligarchs nor Obama.
They both got what they have the dishonest way.
Just because I say that what Obama is doing is: 1) ineffective and 2) entirely inspired by politics rather than effectiveness doesn’t mean that I side with oligarchs.
I don’t have to pick a side. Nor do you.
Why don’t we treat sovereign states like sovereign states and people like people? The problem with liberals is that when you start treating people like individuals it’s impossible to demonize them on the way to indicting them and taking their property ultra vires.
Ericynot1 wrote: I'd like to thank John Ransom for raising an issue that inspired me to learn about some things I'd not been aware of before today. That said, almost everything about this Ransom's article is wrong, wrong, wrong. About the only thing correct and meaningful in it is that we buy RD-180 rocket engines from Russia for use in putting satellites into orbit, and that the supply of those engines might be in jeopardy because of the Ukraine crisis. Sorry, but that's not on Obama in any way, and dragging him into the story simply obfuscates the real issues involved. This problem dates back 15 years and, if we opt to build a new engine to replace the RD-180, we're talking about $1 - 2 billion and probably five years for development. BHO didn't create this problem and there's nothing he can do to resolve it before he's out of office.-- Cash for Russian Clunkers
Dear Comrade Y,
Seriously? You think it’s good policy to be dependent on Russian engines? Why not use Russian aircraft carriers and Russian planes?
United Launch Alliance, the company that uses the engines doesn’t agree with you by the way. That’s why they are developing plans for alternatives to the Russian engines.
“Therefore it announced earlier this week that it has contracted with ‘multiple’ U.S. companies to develop technical concepts and perform business case analyses for alternative engines,” reports SpacePolicyOnline. “ULA expects to choose one design and supplier by the end of this year with the goal of having a new engine ready for launch in 2019.”
I do agree that Obama’s isn’t responsible for the mess though. He’s not responsible for anything. Apparently he hasn’t read about the rocket problem in the newspaper yet. And thanks to goodness too.
He’d likely try to make the engines solar powered.
That's it for this week,
V/r,
JR
Join the conversation as a VIP Member