Re: Open invitation for GWB to come fishin' or huntin' in Canada.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
to continue to serve in public office.

Or something like that....

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
to continue to serve in public office.

Or something like that....

[George Gleason]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> to continue to serve in public office.
>
> Or something like that....
>
>
>
>
Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
power even when indited on grevious felony charges
makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow
George

[George Gleason]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> to continue to serve in public office.
>
> Or something like that....
>
>
>
>
Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
power even when indited on grevious felony charges
makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow
George

[reddred]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
news:voSmd.13860$d96.11966@trnddc01...
> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
pass
> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> to continue to serve in public office.
>
> Or something like that....
>

Have you got a link to that?

jb

[reddred]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
news:voSmd.13860$d96.11966@trnddc01...
> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
pass
> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> to continue to serve in public office.
>
> Or something like that....
>

Have you got a link to that?

jb

[George Gleason]

reddred wrote:
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
> news:voSmd.13860$d96.11966@trnddc01...
>
>>I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
>
> pass
>
>>a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>>prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>>to continue to serve in public office.
>>
>>Or something like that....
>>
>
>
> Have you got a link to that?
>
> jb
>
>
From Yahoo News and AP

> AP Photo
> House Changes Rules to Protect DeLay
> (AP) - House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday

that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership

post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury

on state political corruption charges.

By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition,

the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several

dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader

and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.

[George Gleason]

reddred wrote:
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
> news:voSmd.13860$d96.11966@trnddc01...
>
>>I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
>
> pass
>
>>a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>>prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>>to continue to serve in public office.
>>
>>Or something like that....
>>
>
>
> Have you got a link to that?
>
> jb
>
>
From Yahoo News and AP

> AP Photo
> House Changes Rules to Protect DeLay
> (AP) - House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday

that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership

post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury

on state political corruption charges.

By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition,

the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several

dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader

and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.

[Don Cooper]

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/politics/10208624.htm

[Don Cooper]

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/politics/10208624.htm

[play-on]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:42:24 GMT, George Gleason
> wrote:

>David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
>> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>> to continue to serve in public office.
>>
>> Or something like that....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
>power even when indited on grevious felony charges
>makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
>to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow

Not to mention totally politicizing the CIA... secret police, here we
come...

Al

[play-on]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:42:24 GMT, George Gleason
> wrote:

>David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
>> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>> to continue to serve in public office.
>>
>> Or something like that....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
>power even when indited on grevious felony charges
>makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
>to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow

Not to mention totally politicizing the CIA... secret police, here we
come...

Al

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"play-on" <playonATcomcast.net> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:42:24 GMT, George Gleason
> > wrote:
>
> >David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> >> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
> >> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> >> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> >> to continue to serve in public office.
> >>
> >> Or something like that....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
> >power even when indited on grevious felony charges
> >makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
> >to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow
>
> Not to mention totally politicizing the CIA... secret police, here we
> come...
>
> Al


Both the BBC and PBS radio had some strong words about this CIA thing
tonight... they both also carried interviews with "interned" prisoners in US
jails which are being paid by Ze Homeland Zecurity to keep these 'detainees'
in custody. Of course they won't let them go, they'll lose their little bonus
money.

The law that will indemnify republicans from having to face charges when
accused, started out here in Texas to protect those who managed to pass
a redistricting plan which shuffled representation to favor republicans,
winning them several new seats. They've been accused of fraud, conspiracy
and other charges, and most likely will get away uncontested.

How about that latest cabinet appointee.... GW's long-time personal lawyer,
and most recently, president of legalized gambling addiction here in Texas...
The Texas Lottery. Wow.. what a choice. :-\

"Condi Rice" can replace Colin Powell ??!!?? Sheesh...

With all these people stepping down from the CIA and the Cabinet, does no
one really see what is happening yet ?

AAAAAAaaaaargh....


(Sorry Ty, I had to say it).

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"play-on" <playonATcomcast.net> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:42:24 GMT, George Gleason
> > wrote:
>
> >David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> >> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to pass
> >> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> >> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> >> to continue to serve in public office.
> >>
> >> Or something like that....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
> >power even when indited on grevious felony charges
> >makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
> >to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow
>
> Not to mention totally politicizing the CIA... secret police, here we
> come...
>
> Al


Both the BBC and PBS radio had some strong words about this CIA thing
tonight... they both also carried interviews with "interned" prisoners in US
jails which are being paid by Ze Homeland Zecurity to keep these 'detainees'
in custody. Of course they won't let them go, they'll lose their little bonus
money.

The law that will indemnify republicans from having to face charges when
accused, started out here in Texas to protect those who managed to pass
a redistricting plan which shuffled representation to favor republicans,
winning them several new seats. They've been accused of fraud, conspiracy
and other charges, and most likely will get away uncontested.

How about that latest cabinet appointee.... GW's long-time personal lawyer,
and most recently, president of legalized gambling addiction here in Texas...
The Texas Lottery. Wow.. what a choice. :-\

"Condi Rice" can replace Colin Powell ??!!?? Sheesh...

With all these people stepping down from the CIA and the Cabinet, does no
one really see what is happening yet ?

AAAAAAaaaaargh....


(Sorry Ty, I had to say it).

[Nmm]

George Gleason > wrote in message >...
> reddred wrote:
> > "David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
> > news:voSmd.13860$d96.11966@trnddc01...
> >
> >>I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
> >
> > pass
> >
> >>a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> >>prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> >>to continue to serve in public office.
> >>
> >>Or something like that....
> >>
> >
> >
> > Have you got a link to that?
> >
> > jb
> >
> >
> From Yahoo News and AP
>
> > AP Photo
> > House Changes Rules to Protect DeLay
> > (AP) - House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday
>
> that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership
>
> post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury
>
> on state political corruption charges.
>
> By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition,
>
> the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several
>
> dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader
>
> and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.



So does this mean that Jim Trafficant will be back?

[Nmm]

George Gleason > wrote in message >...
> reddred wrote:
> > "David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
> > news:voSmd.13860$d96.11966@trnddc01...
> >
> >>I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
> >
> > pass
> >
> >>a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
> >>prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
> >>to continue to serve in public office.
> >>
> >>Or something like that....
> >>
> >
> >
> > Have you got a link to that?
> >
> > jb
> >
> >
> From Yahoo News and AP
>
> > AP Photo
> > House Changes Rules to Protect DeLay
> > (AP) - House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday
>
> that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership
>
> post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury
>
> on state political corruption charges.
>
> By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition,
>
> the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several
>
> dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader
>
> and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.



So does this mean that Jim Trafficant will be back?

[Kurt Albershardt]

George Gleason wrote:
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
>> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
>> pass
>> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>> to continue to serve in public office.
>>
>> Or something like that....
>
>
> Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
> power even when indited on grevious felony charges

They are calling it a "partisan witch hunt" by the Democratic DA in Travis County, Texas.

They overlook the fact that this DA has been in office since the early '70s and indicted a whole passel of Democratic politicians during the late '70s and early '80s (when the Dems were in power in TX.)




> makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
> to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow

The rule was put in place by Republicans to take out Democrats under indictment at the time (Whitewater, etc.)

[Kurt Albershardt]

George Gleason wrote:
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
>> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about to
>> pass
>> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>> to continue to serve in public office.
>>
>> Or something like that....
>
>
> Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain in
> power even when indited on grevious felony charges

They are calling it a "partisan witch hunt" by the Democratic DA in Travis County, Texas.

They overlook the fact that this DA has been in office since the early '70s and indicted a whole passel of Democratic politicians during the late '70s and early '80s (when the Dems were in power in TX.)




> makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify rules
> to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to follow

The rule was put in place by Republicans to take out Democrats under indictment at the time (Whitewater, etc.)

[Kurt Albershardt]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
> How about that latest cabinet appointee.... GW's long-time personal lawyer,
> and most recently, president of legalized gambling addiction here in Texas...
> The Texas Lottery. Wow.. what a choice.

Check out Greg Palast's reports of ties between the TX Lottery Commission and GWB's Vietnam service.

[Kurt Albershardt]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
> How about that latest cabinet appointee.... GW's long-time personal lawyer,
> and most recently, president of legalized gambling addiction here in Texas...
> The Texas Lottery. Wow.. what a choice.

Check out Greg Palast's reports of ties between the TX Lottery Commission and GWB's Vietnam service.

[George Gleason]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about
>>> to pass
>>> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>>> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>>> to continue to serve in public office.
>>>
>>> Or something like that....
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain
>> in power even when indited on grevious felony charges
>
>
> They are calling it a "partisan witch hunt" by the Democratic DA in
> Travis County, Texas.
>
> They overlook the fact that this DA has been in office since the early
> '70s and indicted a whole passel of Democratic politicians during the
> late '70s and early '80s (when the Dems were in power in TX.)
>
>
>
>
>> makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify
>> rules to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to
>> follow
>
>
> The rule was put in place by Republicans to take out Democrats under
> indictment at the time (Whitewater, etc.)
>
Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
george

[George Gleason]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're on the right track... especially since they're about
>>> to pass
>>> a law down here to indemnify Republican's from the possibility of
>>> prosecution if accused of a crime, and allow those accused of crimes
>>> to continue to serve in public office.
>>>
>>> Or something like that....
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes they are shoreing up thier own to allow party faithful to remain
>> in power even when indited on grevious felony charges
>
>
> They are calling it a "partisan witch hunt" by the Democratic DA in
> Travis County, Texas.
>
> They overlook the fact that this DA has been in office since the early
> '70s and indicted a whole passel of Democratic politicians during the
> late '70s and early '80s (when the Dems were in power in TX.)
>
>
>
>
>> makes one proud to have such noble republican leaders who modify
>> rules to protect themselves from those silly laws us unwashed have to
>> follow
>
>
> The rule was put in place by Republicans to take out Democrats under
> indictment at the time (Whitewater, etc.)
>
Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
george

[Blind Joni]

>
>> Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
>
>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
>
I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
it is setting things equal...if the report is true.





John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>
>> Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
>
>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
>
I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
it is setting things equal...if the report is true.





John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[George Gleason]

Blind Joni wrote:
>>>Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
>>
>>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
>>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
>>
>
> I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
> Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
> it is setting things equal...if the report is true.
>
>
>
the dems have a more restrictive rule
the law we are talking about is the felonys he is about to be charged with
G

[George Gleason]

Blind Joni wrote:
>>>Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
>>
>>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
>>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
>>
>
> I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
> Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
> it is setting things equal...if the report is true.
>
>
>
the dems have a more restrictive rule
the law we are talking about is the felonys he is about to be charged with
G

[agent86]

George Gleason wrote:

> Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory

But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.

[agent86]

George Gleason wrote:

> Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory

But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Blind Joni" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
> >
> >But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
> >judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
> >
> I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
> Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
> it is setting things equal...if the report is true.

Senate "rule" or law... what the hell is going on that suddenly people (ie our
so-called *government* representatives, no less) don't have to be held
accountable for their crimes?

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Blind Joni" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
> >
> >But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
> >judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
> >
> I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
> Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
> it is setting things equal...if the report is true.

Senate "rule" or law... what the hell is going on that suddenly people (ie our
so-called *government* representatives, no less) don't have to be held
accountable for their crimes?

[George Gleason]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Blind Joni" > wrote in message ...
>
>>>>Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
>>>
>>>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
>>>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
>>>
>>
>>I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
>>Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
>>it is setting things equal...if the report is true.
>
>
> Senate "rule" or law... what the hell is going on that suddenly people (ie our
> so-called *government* representatives, no less) don't have to be held
> accountable for their crimes?
>
>
>
They never have
they are exempt from most regulations as well
the ADA is a prime example
they have exempted themselves from making their buildings handicap
accessible

[George Gleason]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Blind Joni" > wrote in message ...
>
>>>>Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
>>>
>>>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
>>>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
>>>
>>
>>I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
>>Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
>>it is setting things equal...if the report is true.
>
>
> Senate "rule" or law... what the hell is going on that suddenly people (ie our
> so-called *government* representatives, no less) don't have to be held
> accountable for their crimes?
>
>
>
They never have
they are exempt from most regulations as well
the ADA is a prime example
they have exempted themselves from making their buildings handicap
accessible

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message ...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "Blind Joni" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>>>Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
> >>>
> >>>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
> >>>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
> >>Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
> >>it is setting things equal...if the report is true.
> >
> >
> > Senate "rule" or law... what the hell is going on that suddenly people (ie our
> > so-called *government* representatives, no less) don't have to be held
> > accountable for their crimes?
> >
> >
> >
> They never have
> they are exempt from most regulations as well
> the ADA is a prime example
> they have exempted themselves from making their buildings handicap
> accessible

I'm hip to all the bad check writing, parking and speeding violations, etc.,
but Fraud and Conspiracy... I think that's taking it pretty far over the edge.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message ...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "Blind Joni" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>>>Fortunaly the rule of law is blind to political party, in theory
> >>>
> >>>But theory doesn't count for much when the highest court consists mostly of
> >>>judges appointed by the party that is breaking the law.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I heard a report today that said this is a Senate agreement..not a law..and the
> >>Republicans have it and the Dems bnever adopted a similar rule don't..so really
> >>it is setting things equal...if the report is true.
> >
> >
> > Senate "rule" or law... what the hell is going on that suddenly people (ie our
> > so-called *government* representatives, no less) don't have to be held
> > accountable for their crimes?
> >
> >
> >
> They never have
> they are exempt from most regulations as well
> the ADA is a prime example
> they have exempted themselves from making their buildings handicap
> accessible

I'm hip to all the bad check writing, parking and speeding violations, etc.,
but Fraud and Conspiracy... I think that's taking it pretty far over the edge.