re: Here's the SCUM that Perry is being indicted over (SIAP) .......

quote:

---

Nah, veto power has everything to do with that statute.

Unfortunately for him it has to do with subsection (c), which is why Perry walks.

---

I think you guys are ignoring the allegations against Perry. If it's as simple as you suggest, then you're correct. But it's not.

The $7.5 million veto was not for money directed to the D.A.'s office for it's local duties but instead the money was directed for funding the public integrity unit which is within the Travis County DA's office and has jurisdiction across the state. That unit has gone after some of Perry's friends (along with Tom Delay). By saying the DA either resign or he cuts funding to that unit, he's attempting to, in effect, eliminate or seriously weaken a department that's been after his friends and supporters.

I'm not saying he'll be found guilty but this is not black and white issue that many have claiming on this board. I know if Obama did anything like this, you'd see very different arguments being made.

quote:

---

The $7.5 million veto was not for money directed to the D.A.'s office for it's local duties but instead the money was directed for funding the public integrity unit which is within the Travis County DA's office and has jurisdiction across the state.

---

Correct. The issue is state funding. Not local. You are one of the few to get this right!

quote:

---

That unit has gone after some of Perry's friends (along with Tom Delay).

---

Makes no difference. The TX constitution doesn't grant veto power "only if funding if is not connected to something that happened to Tom Delay a decade ago".

quote:

---

By saying the DA either resign or he cuts funding to that unit, he's attempting to, in effect, eliminate or seriously weaken a department that's been after his friends and supporters.

---

Then why did he allow it to be funded for 13 of his 14 years in office?

quote:

---

I know if Obama did anything like this, you'd see very different arguments being made.

---

Nope. I'm no fan of Pointy Boots. And I'd have NO problem if Obama vetoes a bill. It's a clear constitutional power--whether I agree with it or not.

The problem here is some TX Democrats are attempting to criminalize political disagreements. That's a dangerous precedent. When acting within constitutional powers becomes a crime... we have lost any sensible hope of having honest disagreements, debates, and governance.

quote:

---

The problem here is some TX Democrats are attempting to criminalize political disagreements. That's a dangerous precedent. When acting within constitutional powers becomes a crime... we have lost any sensible hope of having honest disagreements, debates, and governance.

---

Amen. Best post yet.

quote:

---

I guess you'd prefer to have Jerry Sandusky babysitting your kids.

---

as long as Sandusky was a democrat he'd be ok with it

quote:

---

You seem to be up to snuff with this story. My question is, she was in jail for 45 days? Was this the punishment for a first offense DUI or did she have more charges of DUI already? Thanks.

---

First offense. 45 days is on the stiff side, but that's to be expected given her BAC and conduct in booking. Most first DWIs in Texas will get either a couple years' probation + treatment, or a week in jail at most. (I don't like this, but that's generally how it goes down.)