|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 22:06:52 GMT -5
We'll see... the important thing... Lehmberg is still on the job... Perry took the $$$ away from the good people of Texas... Wow... you really are proud of this woman and her cronies aren't you? And the notion that Perry took money away from the good people of Texas... I mean that's just mindblowing. When a governor vetoes a line item on a spending bill, that money isn't 'taken' from anyone. It just continues to sit in the treasury. Damn right... and the $$$ was taken away from the people who needed it or it wouldn't have been going to them to begin with... even if it was used somewhere else... it was withheld for political reasons... Perry didn't get his way...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 16, 2014 22:14:31 GMT -5
We'll see... the important thing... Lehmberg is still on the job... Perry took the $$$ away from the good people of Texas... IOW, she's still able to file frivolous lawsuits to try to bankrupt any Pub, so they can't run against the losers the Dems are putting up. Dems are famous for using pet judges in the courts to do what they can't do legally.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 16, 2014 22:15:51 GMT -5
Wow... you really are proud of this woman and her cronies aren't you? And the notion that Perry took money away from the good people of Texas... I mean that's just mindblowing. When a governor vetoes a line item on a spending bill, that money isn't 'taken' from anyone. It just continues to sit in the treasury. Damn right... and the $$$ was taken away from the people who needed it or it wouldn't have been going to them to begin with... even if it was used somewhere else... it was withheld for political reasons... Perry didn't get his way... No, it was withheld because Perry has a much higher standard of conduct than Democrats do. For Dems, Lehmberg getting a DUI is a resume inhancement.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 16, 2014 22:19:50 GMT -5
Damn right... and the $$$ was taken away from the people who needed it or it wouldn't have been going to them to begin with... even if it was used somewhere else... it was withheld for political reasons... Perry didn't get his way... No, it was withheld because Perry has a much higher standard of conduct than Democrats do. For Dems, Lehmberg getting a DUI is a resume inhancement. Perry can't impose his own personal standard on Lehmberg... she doesn't work for him...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 17, 2014 7:58:18 GMT -5
No, it was withheld because Perry has a much higher standard of conduct than Democrats do. For Dems, Lehmberg getting a DUI is a resume inhancement. Perry can't impost his own personal standard on Lehmberg... she doesn't work for him... But he doesn't have to fund her. When he has to agree to funding for any agency, he has the authority to say "no". Lehmberg's charges are simply a Democrat's way of saying "I want that money, and you WILL NOT stop me from getting it". It's also the Democrat's favorite way of subverting the law.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 8:06:43 GMT -5
Perry can't impost his own personal standard on Lehmberg... she doesn't work for him... But he doesn't have to fund her. When he has to agree to funding for any agency, he has the authority to say "no". Lehmberg's charges are simply a Democrat's way of saying "I want that money, and you WILL NOT stop me from getting it". It's also the Democrat's favorite way of subverting the law. Like I said... the indictment was for the threat... and was handled prior to the veto... the veto itself is not the issue...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 17, 2014 8:36:44 GMT -5
But he doesn't have to fund her. When he has to agree to funding for any agency, he has the authority to say "no". Lehmberg's charges are simply a Democrat's way of saying "I want that money, and you WILL NOT stop me from getting it". It's also the Democrat's favorite way of subverting the law. Like I said... the indictment was for the threat... and was handled prior to the veto... the veto itself is not the issue... So, a governor 'making threats' to withhold money because of criminal behavior of a DA is indictable, but threats of bodily harm and career ending by that same DA while in the commission of another crime are not? Really?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 11:06:09 GMT -5
Like I said... the indictment was for the threat... and was handled prior to the veto... the veto itself is not the issue... So, a governor 'making threats' to withhold money because of criminal behavior of a DA is indictable, but threats of bodily harm and career ending by that same DA while in the commission of another crime are not? Really? Apparently a grand jury thought so... it likely won't go far... but the damage has been done to Perry like it was to To DeLay... not that "damage" was the only intent... and no, grand juries don't normally indict individuals for the foolish things they say when they're three sheets in the wind... they have more common sense...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 17, 2014 14:34:56 GMT -5
Wow... you really are proud of this woman and her cronies aren't you? And the notion that Perry took money away from the good people of Texas... I mean that's just mindblowing. When a governor vetoes a line item on a spending bill, that money isn't 'taken' from anyone. It just continues to sit in the treasury. Damn right... and the $$$ was taken away from the people who needed it or it wouldn't have been going to them to begin with... even if it was used somewhere else... it was withheld for political reasons... Perry didn't get his way... This statement is absurd. This money was specifically taken away from a power abusing drunk. Not 'the people' in any rational sense of the word. If anyone took this funding away from 'the people' it was Lehmberg for refusing to do the right thing and step aside. But see, even she didn't do that. The money still belongs to the people, and it sits in their treasury. Waiting for the Travis County Democrats to do the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 17:59:47 GMT -5
Damn right... and the $$$ was taken away from the people who needed it or it wouldn't have been going to them to begin with... even if it was used somewhere else... it was withheld for political reasons... Perry didn't get his way... This statement is absurd. This money was specifically taken away from a power abusing drunk. Not 'the people' in any rational sense of the word. If anyone took this funding away from 'the people' it was Lehmberg for refusing to do the right thing and step aside. But see, even she didn't do that. The money still belongs to the people, and it sits in their treasury. Waiting for the Travis County Democrats to do the right thing. B S... plain and simple...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 17, 2014 19:43:59 GMT -5
So, a governor 'making threats' to withhold money because of criminal behavior of a DA is indictable, but threats of bodily harm and career ending by that same DA while in the commission of another crime are not? Really? Apparently a grand jury thought so... it likely won't go far... but the damage has been done to Perry like it was to To DeLay... not that "damage" was the only intent... and no, grand juries don't normally indict individuals for the foolish things they say when they're three sheets in the wind... they have more common sense... Yes it was. Democrats go to the courts when they can't beat Pubs in an open, fair election, or when they don't have the votes to stop Pubs from doing something they don't like. They don't have to win, they don't even care if they win, they just want to point to some Pub, or Pubs supporter and scream "he's been indicted". Doesn't matter for what, or how they managed to get some pet judge to go along with their criminal activity, they just want to stop the obstruction of their Marxist agenda "by whatever means necessary". Just like with Delay, who's "conviction" was not only overturned, but the DA was admonished by the judge.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 17, 2014 19:45:07 GMT -5
So, a governor 'making threats' to withhold money because of criminal behavior of a DA is indictable, but threats of bodily harm and career ending by that same DA while in the commission of another crime are not? Really? Apparently a grand jury thought so... it likely won't go far... but the damage has been done to Perry like it was to To DeLay... not that "damage" was the only intent... and no, grand juries don't normally indict individuals for the foolish things they say when they're three sheets in the wind... they have more common sense... But this one indicted a sitting governor for exercising his Constitutional authority. No wonder Dems are considered infantile, when they aren't insane.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 21:22:31 GMT -5
Apparently a grand jury thought so... it likely won't go far... but the damage has been done to Perry like it was to To DeLay... not that "damage" was the only intent... and no, grand juries don't normally indict individuals for the foolish things they say when they're three sheets in the wind... they have more common sense... Yes it was. Democrats go to the courts when they can't beat Pubs in an open, fair election, or when they don't have the votes to stop Pubs from doing something they don't like. They don't have to win, they don't even care if they win, they just want to point to some Pub, or Pubs supporter and scream "he's been indicted". Doesn't matter for what, or how they managed to get some pet judge to go along with their criminal activity, they just want to stop the obstruction of their Marxist agenda "by whatever means necessary". Just like with Delay, who's "conviction" was not only overturned, but the DA was admonished by the judge. Dirty politics... don't ya just love it...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 21:24:09 GMT -5
Apparently a grand jury thought so... it likely won't go far... but the damage has been done to Perry like it was to To DeLay... not that "damage" was the only intent... and no, grand juries don't normally indict individuals for the foolish things they say when they're three sheets in the wind... they have more common sense... But this one indicted a sitting governor for exercising his Constitutional authority. No wonder Dems are considered infantile, when they aren't insane. So, unless there's a plea deal... somebody's gonna get convicted or someone is going to wind up with egg on their face...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 17, 2014 21:41:54 GMT -5
Yes it was. Democrats go to the courts when they can't beat Pubs in an open, fair election, or when they don't have the votes to stop Pubs from doing something they don't like. They don't have to win, they don't even care if they win, they just want to point to some Pub, or Pubs supporter and scream "he's been indicted". Doesn't matter for what, or how they managed to get some pet judge to go along with their criminal activity, they just want to stop the obstruction of their Marxist agenda "by whatever means necessary". Just like with Delay, who's "conviction" was not only overturned, but the DA was admonished by the judge. Dirty politics... don't ya just love it... That's not politics, that's temper tantrums.
|
|