he says he is taking one for the party...
Posted by bdgee on :
I suspect, from what I've read, that the Party very much encouraged this move and they are hoping it will stop the bleeding. Again, from what I've read, the envolvement of the Party in the illegal dealings carried on via Delay's Congressional Offices is just the tip of the iceberg and they have real needs to get the investigations ended.
Isn't it sad that out political parties can get so involved in their own interest as to act to the detriment of the Nation?
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
NEWS FLASH!!!!!! "SNOW" MELTS in Spring! LMFAO
Who ya gonna call???
Hell! who will be left to call? LOL
Posted by HILANDER on :
Hey, Tex or Bdgee should run for his now abondoned position. I'd vote for 'em.
Posted by bdgee on :
Nope, can't do that, Hilan.....
In order to qualify, according to the laws here, we'd both have to move out of Fort Worth and down around Sugarland. It's a beautiful town and beautiful country down there, though....wonderful hunting and fishing and marvelous people....the home of Babe Dedrickson and a whole passel of fine upstanding decendents of Sam Houston's revolutionary army.
Posted by BuyTex on :
we'd *both* have to move? Dang, those *are* tough rules, lol...
seriously, we couldn't run, anyway--even if we were in the party: the successor has already been picked, else DeLay wouldn't have announced, yet...
Posted by bdgee on :
Very true, Tex. The republican part of the ticket is presently held by Delay and that can't be brought to a close short of his death or moving from the district, I think it says. I understand he plans to move to Virginia, no doubt close to D.C. where he can still dip his wick into corruption in the capital and away from Sugarland where he probably has little future. Remember, before Congress, he ran a pest control business......might not be so many customers that would loose a felon into their home armed with deadly poison.
Posted by Jucifer on :
If he becomes a convicted felon, he can't vote anymore... how funny would that be... oh, the irony.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, I hadn't thought of that.
I do have to admit, not allowing convicted fellons to vote is, in my opinion, not a good thing. Once you have forced a person, however good or bad (and however good or bad your intent in doing so) outside of society, is it really something to be surprised about when they refuse to or find it impossible to follow society's rules and customs?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Good point.
Posted by glassman on :
maybe we should let them BUY their rights back? you know like the senate wants to do with the illegals?
Posted by bdgee on :
Contrary to what most people believe (probably over 99% rather than just most), members of Congress already represent both felons and illegals, because the apportioning of representatives in Congress (Members of the House) is determined not by citizenship in the various States, but by "persons". At least in that sense, any argument you make or accept or want to be the case, to the effect that felons or illegals or even legal foreigeners living in the U.S. should not be allowed to be be contributing or influencing House members is NOT what the Constitution foresees. And that WAS NOT an accidental wording or an overlooked entry!
So, I ask, since the "framers" intended them to be represented, why deny them the right to vote. In most respect the "framers" did a more than suitable job of "wording and defining" things so that we still exist and function.
A historical note on that subject, which will defray any argument that the "framers" failed to give serious or sufficient concern to how they worded that part of the constitution dealing with apportioning the House. . The "3/5ths compromise", with attention to the use of "persons" rather than "citizens" in describing the apportioning of the House, was a compromise between the north and south wherein the north, not the south, wanted to not allow negros to be counted as "persons" in that apportionment. Note that the end result was to 60% count those "persons" even though they were not going to consider them to be worthy of "rights". The argument at the time wasn't over which word to use, but how to define "person". We (not us in the sense of those of us alive today, but we as a nation) have reason to be ashamed of our own dignity and worth when we disallow it to others.
Posted by glassman on :
and women? did they get counted as a whole person who just couldn't vote, or what?
Posted by bdgee on :
It is my understanding that women always were counted as a person, provided they are (pure) white.
It is important to realize that what most people believe to be "rights" of citizens granted by the Constitution are most often
(1) not resptricted to citizens
and
(2) more often "restrictions" on the actions of government rather than "rights" of people.
Notice the use of "people" rather than "citizens" and the wordings that speak of what Congress can not do in the 1st Amendment.
Generally, the Constitution is a document that describes the boundaries or limitation on actions of governance. And, generally, where it mentions individuals, it seldom speaks of citizens. Isn't it interesting that there is no part of the Constitution, as originally written, including the Bill of Rights, that declares that any citizen, male, female, of any race or whatever has a right to vote?