Paul Wolfowitz restates the case for...

[gtownspur]

Not at all. I never would've said anything about Delay had you not brought him up. It was a weak analogy you made and it deserved to be exposed as such.

Here's the post, i'm referring to.

well, obviously you're still stuck on blaming bush for the whole thing.

There was a congressional debate over this, if the evidence was that flimsy as liberals claim, then it could have been avoided.

Heck, we've made Tom Delay step with weaker evidence.

Unless you're either pixel, mookie, or have a vendetta, there's no reason to try to twist my words dishonestly like you did.

Any reasonable person will find you trying to make me come across as saying that the weak evidence to bring down tom delay was the reason for democrats being suckered, will see right through it.

Your tactics are gutless.

[ChumpDumper]

Any reasonable person will find you trying to make me come across as saying that the weak evidence to bring down tom delay was the reason for democrats being suckered

Not at all. They'll see that your analogy doesn't hold up. You are comparing a grand jury in Travis County's (erroneously saying it was Congress) action to bring a charge against a sitting congressman to the US Congress' action to agree to the President's request to send young men and women to a foreign country to fight and die.

It was weak. There's no use complaining about having that pointed out to you.

[PixelPusher]

Unless you're either pixel, mookie, or have a vendetta, there's no reason to try to twist my words dishonestly like you did.

Are you referring to me? And if so, why?

[gtownspur]

Not at all. They'll see that your analogy doesn't hold up. You are comparing a grand jury in Travis County's action to bring a charge against a sitting congressman to the US Congress' action to agree to the President's request to send young men and women to a foreign country to fight and die.

It was weak. There's no use complaining about having that pointed out to you.

1.The grand jury did not make Delay step down, he was only indicted.

2. It was Congress who made Delay, not a grand jury, step down on weak evidence.


That analogy is simply stating that, It doesn't take much evidedenc for Congress to overrule or decide against one's favor.

It's that simple.

[gtownspur]

Are you referring to me? And if so, why?

Wow, i've notice a pattern of you coming to the aid of CD, at 12:00 on the west coast because CD is too cool to need it from you, and since he's clearly pwning me.

[ChumpDumper]

Delay resigned.

So it's a baseless analogy.

[gtownspur]

Delay resigned.

So it's a baseless analogy.

You're right, before he was asked to step down.

[PixelPusher]

Wow, i've notice a pattern of you coming to the aid of CD, at 12:00 on the west coast because CD is too cool to need it from you, and since he's clearly pwning me.

I do log on at midnight quite often, but I rarely need to "come to CD's aide".

[ChumpDumper]

You're right, before he was asked to step down.

By whom? It's not like the Republicans were going to vote to remove him.

[gtownspur]

I do log on at midnight quite often, but I rarely need to "come to CD's aide".

THe irony, in you participating right now in this discussion.

[gtownspur]

By whom? It's not like the Republicans were going to vote to remove him.

Why not?

He was a liability.

[PixelPusher]

THe irony, in you participating right now in this discussion.

Why is it 90% of the people who use the term "irony" don't know what it means?

I posted a direct question to you, regarding me. That's not "coming to CD's aid".

[gtownspur]

Why is it 90% of the people who use the term "irony" don't know what it means?

I posted a direct question to you, regarding me. That's not "coming to CD's aid".

Look dip, it's quite evident that you always make an appearance when ever me and CD go at it, just look to the past threads and they'd indict you.


It's not ironic what you said, it's what you said in the previous post, and your occurrening appearances in mine and Chumps discussion.

[PixelPusher]

Look dip, it's quite evident that you always make an appearance when ever me and CD go at it, just look to the past threads and they'd indict you.


It's not ironic what you said, it's what you said in the previous post, and your occurrening appearances in mine and Chumps discussion.

Well, I looked through "MSNBC: US aisrstrikes target suspected AQ site in Somalia", "Rewarding punditry failure (and punishing success)" and reread this thread; all of which feature back-and-forths between you and CD (which are highly entertaining, hence the reason I log in to read them) and couldn't find a single instance where I "come to CD's aid", hence negating your assertion that I'm always joining in to defend him. If the few times in the past that I did join in bothers you so much, well...tough .

[ChumpDumper]

Why not?

He was a liability.

I saw no report of their overtly abandoning him.

[exstatic]

I saw no report of their overtly abandoning him.

He was "abandonded" when the GOP changed House ethics committee rules to allow indicted Congresscritters to continue to serve, and when they replaced GOP members on said committee with more tractable ones after DeLay was admonished several times in one year, even though the GOP controlled the committee.