Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/lobbyist.fraud/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/03/31/lobbyist.fraud/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "Rudy served as deputy chief of staff for DeLay when the lawmaker was House majority whip but had left that position when DeLay became majority leader."
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Rudy served as deputy chief of staff for DeLay when the lawmaker was House majority whip but had left that position when DeLay became majority leader." And this is significant for what reason?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder And as long as we're picking out sections to quote, here's the most relevant: "After Friday's hearing, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, speaking for the government, said: "The American public loses when officials and lobbyists conspire to buy and sell influence in such a corrupt and brazen manner. ... By his admission in open court today Mr. Rudy paints a picture of Washington which the American public and law enforcement will simply not tolerate." The government also announced Rudy's wife would cooperate with investigators and would not be charged in the case. She was not named in open court, but was listed as receiving payments arranged by Abramoff totaling $50,000."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And this is significant for what reason?> It shows that your title was a little misleading. Rudy is a former DeLay aide; he hasn't worked for DeLay for several years.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "It shows that your title was a little misleading. Rudy is a former DeLay aide; he hasn't worked for DeLay for several years." Once a Beatle, always a Beatle. And once a felon, always a felon. Your complaint is dismissed.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Sure I am, it's my thread. Your complaint is de minimis, therefore it is dismissed.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Pass--I think Douglas inferred your attempt at "guilt by association" in the title? Douglas was merely showing that the association wasn't that intimate or recent, so hence NOT guilt by association. Your analogy anent the Beatles fails because "ONCE a Beatle always a Beatle" doesn't consider that their music changed dramatically through the years. I have all their stuff going way back to the vinyl albums I got for xmas in 1964. So even if Rudy and Tom were tight, that is ancient history, hence Douglas feels it's a false and misleading association that you have made to serve your purpose. Just a thought?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Now should my repartee be "Your complaint is dismissed!" It's not my style as this is an opinion. The facts I find interesting are the posters who backed Judge Cashman for only giving the child molester 2 months in jail in Vermont by saying that we have to rehab the offender when ALL conclusive scientific data proves it can't be done. Then in the next breath, "once a felon always a felon" completely hypocritical contradiction as obviously a child molester is the only scientifically PROVEN "once a felon always a felon" Just some rational thought process going on here I read post 6 5 times and I still can't see even a scintilla of logic??????
