Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
[FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="5"] The prosecutor acts as if he’s a mere bystander to the indictment, insisting that since “the Grand Jury has spoken” he will follow up. But the only reason the “Grand Jury has spoken” is that the prosecutor, in complete control of the process, convinced the Grand Jury to so speak.
I would disagree with that "assumption." A Grand Jury heavily dominated by liberal Democrats would be inclined to indict just because the defendant's name is Rick Perry.
If anyone doubts that ... just look at the posts in this forum ... "he's guilty"!
The precedent set by this indictment is unfortunate. As the saying goes ...
.. "the shoe is on the other foot soon enough."
If threatening to veto legislation is a crime, ...
.... then there is plenty of criminal activity currently in the White House.
But that goof-ball has cover from Hairless Readless.
Is that like handing out grants to bankrupt "green energy" labor union companies from which campaign donations were received?
So you don't stir up too much shit down at Nau's soda fountain ...
... I frankly could give a shit if a politician gets indicted so long as the charges are legitimate and based on some crime.
If a governor can be convicted for threatening a veto then a President ought to also. If Martha Steward can go to prison for lying to a Federal investigator, then a President ought to also for perjury in a court proceeding. It really doesn't matter to me their respective party affiliation or political philosophy. And it really doesn't matter to me how well they are liked or disliked, how well they "poll" at any given time, and/or how good or poor a "public servant."
Every elected, appointed, and hired government person is ....
BTW -- most everybody I've known who caught a FIRST TIME DUI never spent a single day in jail after sentencing.
Perry droning on about her BAC yesterday was just more political theater from one of the biggest dipshits in American politics.
In 14 years I cannot remember when Perry did anything to promote the general welfare of Texans. Can you?
He refused to raise taxes when Texas faced a record $10 billion budget shortfall in 2003. Instead, he was the first Texas governor since World War II to sign a budget that lowered state spending (and has now done it twice). As governor, Perry has used his line item veto to cut over $3 billion in proposed spending. He led the battle to pass the country’s most sweeping lawsuit reforms, closing the door on junk lawsuits that had been making trial lawyers rich while driving countless doctors either out of the state or the profession all together. Since Texas voters approved these reforms, malpractice claims and premiums have fallen and access to healthcare is increasing across the state as doctors have applied in droves to practice in Texas.
In 2005, Perry signed a historic $15.7 billion property tax cut for homeowners and businesses that also included new taxpayer protections against appraisal increases. In 2009, Gov. Perry secured a tax cut for approximately 40,000 small businesses in Texas and protected the Rainy Day Fund for future challenges.
-from his campaign literature
I think a lot of jobs have also been created during his tenure, and the rainy day fund is way up, thanks to his effective regulation of the oil and gas industry, which is a game changer for America. Shale oil production needs to be effectively regulated and not snuffed out, like the liberals want to do. Other states have shale oil but aren't getting it out of the ground safely or with reasonable environmental controls.
If a governor can be convicted for threatening a veto then a President ought to also.
That's not what he's being convicted of. He's being convicted of trying to run her out of office (an elected public official) by threatening to withhold funds (the veto of which you speak.)
That's not what he's being convicted of. He's being convicted of trying to run her out of office (an elected public official) by threatening to withhold funds (the veto of which you speak.)
Someone charged with "murder" is being accused of "killing someone"!
If you really want "to get technical" ...
.. he was indicted for being Rick Perry.
Just look at the posts on this board.
Bill Clinton was not indicted,
... because he is Bill Clinton, even though found to have lied under oath."
If a governor can be convicted for threatening a veto then a President ought to also.."
Good fucking Lord.... say the President wanted to fire a Special Prosecutor that was investigating his office? Like Nixon did....and like the Travis Co prosecutor was doing.
Are you so ignorant that you can not see the difference between a veto and a veto dependent on say a Senator resigning or a prosecutor investigating you resigning?
Someone charged with "murder" is being accused of "killing someone"!
If you really want "to get technical" ...
.. he was indicted for being Rick Perry.
Just look at the posts on this board.
Thank you. I almost forgot this forum was ruled by dumbasses who take a position first then defend it all costs with whatever poorly conceived logic is required.
You simply right. Republicans and all they stand for are simply right. Bring back GWB and make us safe from all that threatens us once again.
I'll just turn back on Fox News. They can do all my thinking for me and I will consider all that they report to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
