Tuesday, April 04, 2006

DeLay Suggests Democrats Are Thieves...

As Delay resigns after accepting bribes from Abramoff and Indian Tribes that he intended to vote against, he goes down accusing Democrats of being thieves that steal elections.

I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative personal campaign," DeLay said in a video announcement Tuesday, a few hours after news broke of his decision.

It's a bit sad really, here Delay is being accused of accepting bribes for services that he never intended to render, effectively making him a participant in the theft of millions of dollars from Indian tribes, and he's worried that his criminal behaviour might be viewed in a negative light, allowing a Democrat to take his seat.

When a criminal leaves office in disgrace, is his replacement automatically considered a thief? Why is it that Republicans win elections, but Democrats are criminals that steal elections? And isn't the blanket accusation that Democrats are criminals, a negative campaign tactic?

John Cornyn a while back made the problem clear I think, when he argued pretty much that all of the qualified Republicans are engaging in criminal behaviour, and whether they have committed crimes or not, shouldn't be a factor in choosing Republican leadership. Instead, he made the argument that the most qualified of the Republican Criminals, should be considered for the leadership positions. And so, knowing full well that Tom Delay was a criminal and in effect, the definition of dirty laundry, he won the Republican Primary. As there were no ethical, moral and law abiding Republicans that were qualified to take his seat, he won it handily.

My own Pete Sessions is himself embroiled in a number of scandals where illegal bribes for illegal services is bringing down some prominent businessmen. He was also involved in the same scandal that brought down Tom Delay, and followed along, commiting the same crimes. All on public record.

As John Cornyn has explained, pretty much all of the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are criminals and like him, there's no point in replacing them all. Where would you get qualified people if you kicked the criminal element out of politics?

So for now, the Republican Party recognizes that they are criminals, has accepted that they are criminals, and have agreed to support each other's criminal activities as they continue to work against the interests of the American People and the United States itself.

Crime does pay and the Republican Party doesn't intend to upset the gravy train over any issues like ethics and morality.

1 Comments:

At 10:28 PM, Anonymous Monsieur Why said...

Scenario #1

Get rid of current US government. Install Monsieur Why as Emperor of the Realm. I raise the minimum wage. Then I tell the farmers of all fifty states that we will pay $5/gal for ethanol directly from the treasury. They must use solar, wind, or geothermal to produce it. Idaho uses 10% of the potatoes for the cause, Hawaii, coconuts and pineapples. Michigan, sugar beets. Kansas, wheat. You get the picture. Then I tell Ford to build me one million ethanol burning escorts over the next four years. I will use them for the federal motor pool and take Escalades in trade for them also. (Forget it GM, you're toast.) I then encourage motorcycles, cut the speed limit, and raise import taxes on oil and textiles. I pay back the Chinese with excess money from taxes and ship the Arabs some decent food for a change. Then we all eat rainbow stew with a silver spoon and live happily ever after.

Scenario #2

The corporate-fascist state tightens its grip on power. We fight more and more stupid wars started by inbred morons. The government continues to lack imagination and a vision for the future that doesn't include Armageddon. The debt exceeds the GDP and the currency becomes worthless. The infidels in office loot and pillage the coffers until there is not a shred of dignity left to any person in the whole damn country. We run out of oil and natural gas. Everyone starves or freezes to death because that's what the fiscal quarterly report showed would be best for the profit margin. Life on Earth becomes more and more untenable due to rapidly deteriorating environmental conditions caused by mindless, savage, refinement. Billions die in a matter of years and life is miserable for the few survivors.

Question: Which of the two will more closely approximate the future?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home