• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tom DeLay Sentenced To 3 Years In Prison

Dittohead not! said:
So, we're OK with a military that is twice as strong as our enemies. We don't need one that is six times as strong, that's just overkill.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion. I am not so sure we are "six times as strong" as anyone....

We also don't need weapons that are powerful enough to wipe out the Soviet Union. We already won that war.
Click to expand...

Oh, so once the cold war was over, never another thought about Russia eh? Sounds naive to me...

and modern warfare is more likely to involve small arms and surgical strikes than it is to involve sophisticated weaponry and large naval vessels, especially if we've finally learned our lesson about not attempting nation building projects.
Click to expand...

Yeah? What if it's not? What happens if we downsize, who fills that vacuum? You just dismiss that anyone would want to take us down, until after the carnage has happened, then you ring your hands and say "how could this have happened"?
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, we're OK with a military that is twice as strong as our enemies. We don't need one that is six times as strong, that's just overkill.

We also don't need weapons that are powerful enough to wipe out the Soviet Union. We already won that war.

and modern warfare is more likely to involve small arms and surgical strikes than it is to involve sophisticated weaponry and large naval vessels, especially if we've finally learned our lesson about not attempting nation building projects.
Click to expand...
How many wars in how many places should we be able to fight at the same time?

If we are not going to have a navy with large vessels how will we get our forces and supplies to the places we fight? FedEx?
 
Misterveritis said:
How many wars in how many places should we be able to fight at the same time?

If we are not going to have a navy with large vessels how will we get our forces and supplies to the places we fight? FedEx?
Click to expand...

I don't think the choices is endless number or zero. Instead, it is what do we need, and when is it enough?
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think the choices is endless number or zero. Instead, it is what do we need, and when is it enough?
Click to expand...

In arriving at that number, and force level is always going to be the rub....After all leaving it to people that don't recognize a threat until after an incident is dangerous.
 
j-mac said:
In arriving at that number, and force level is always going to be the rub....After all leaving it to people that don't recognize a threat until after an incident is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Such is always the trouble with any decision on anything. But if you let any group decide what they want with a blank check, they will spend, and spend some more. Somewhere in the process there has to be voices who say this is what we need, and this isn't. It can't be the people wanting the money, and it can't be someone with no knowledge on the needs. But we elect people to take in the information and make the decisions.
 
Delay-mugshot.jpg



:2razz:
 
j-mac said:
Well, that's your opinion. I am not so sure we are "six times as strong" as anyone....
Click to expand...

If spending = strength, then we should be.

j-mac said:
Oh, so once the cold war was over, never another thought about Russia eh? Sounds naive to me...
Click to expand...

Oh, we still need a military that is stronger than that of Russia. We just shouldn't have to spend six or seven times as much as they do to accomplish that end.

j-mac said:
Yeah? What if it's not? What happens if we downsize, who fills that vacuum? You just dismiss that anyone would want to take us down, until after the carnage has happened, then you ring your hands and say "how could this have happened"?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying that we need to dump the military, just that we don't have to spend as much as we do in order to be safe.

When it comes to cutting spending, we can't have sacred cows. We can't put a large part of the budget aside and say, "Oh, the cuts will have to come from somewhere else." Everything has to be considered.

Not that it matters. It's not as if we have any real fiscal conservatives elected anyway.
 
Tom Delay may yet win on Appeal, From what I understand the law he was convected under
did not include checks until 2005, 3 years after the charged event.
One question to ask, might be why was he charged in Travis county, as he never lived in
or represented that area?
Even in liberal Travis county, it took several grand juries to get an indictment.
Did the Democratic party benefit from Delay being removed?
 
longview said:
Tom Delay may yet win on Appeal, From what I understand the law he was convected under
did not include checks until 2005, 3 years after the charged event.
One question to ask, might be why was he charged in Travis county, as he never lived in
or represented that area?
Even in liberal Travis county, it took several grand juries to get an indictment.
Did the Democratic party benefit from Delay being removed?
Click to expand...

The entire U.S. population benefited by putting that crook in jail. That's how you prevent further crooked politicians from doing the same as he.
It is a trumph of the justice system that such a "connected" politician is not above the law and received some of the punishment he deserves.
 
iguanaman said:
The entire U.S. population benefited by putting that crook in jail. That's how you prevent further crooked politicians from doing the same as he.
It is a trumph of the justice system that such a "connected" politician is not above the law and received some of the punishment he deserves.
Click to expand...
Do you know that Delay's illegal activity is legal in most other state, and maybe even Texas at the time.
I was in Delay's district for a while, I don't think he was a nice guy, but I also did not expect him to be.
If our legal system is used to remove politicians based on their lean, it is a corruption of our legal system.
 
longview said:
Do you know that Delay's illegal activity is legal in most other state, and maybe even Texas at the time.
I was in Delay's district for a while, I don't think he was a nice guy, but I also did not expect him to be.
If our legal system is used to remove politicians based on their lean, it is a corruption of our legal system.
Click to expand...

Texas "leans" Republican so your accusation of bias is unfounded. It there wasnt' such a GOP bias there Delay would have been in jail years ago. He took money for favors and that should be a life sentance for politicians.
 
iguanaman said:
Texas "leans" Republican so your accusation of bias is unfounded. It there wasnt' such a GOP bias there Delay would have been in jail years ago. He took money for favors and that should be a life sentance for politicians.
Click to expand...
So Delay stood trial for selling favors? news to me!
Corruption at any level should not be tolerated, but Delay was not convected of corruption, or selling favors.
Corruption can also take the form of improper prosecution.
All forms of corruption are dangerous to our Republic, and we should guard against them all.
 
longview said:
So Delay stood trial for selling favors? news to me!
Corruption at any level should not be tolerated, but Delay was not convected of corruption, or selling favors.
Corruption can also take the form of improper prosecution.
All forms of corruption are dangerous to our Republic, and we should guard against them all.
Click to expand...

Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. That is what they could prove. The same principle applies to Tom Delay. He was guilty of a litany of crimes too.
 
Earlier I wrote, "How many wars in how many places should we be able to fight at the same time?

If we are not going to have a navy with large vessels how will we get our forces and supplies to the places we fight? FedEx?"

Boo Radley said:
I don't think the choices is endless number or zero. Instead, it is what do we need, and when is it enough?
Click to expand...
But the number we choose to prepare for are policy decisions. They are made by civilians. All wars are "come as you are". So policy drives our options. For many years we had a 2 1/2 war strategy. Today what is our strategy? One on a good day if the wind is at our backs?
 
Misterveritis said:
Earlier I wrote, "How many wars in how many places should we be able to fight at the same time?

If we are not going to have a navy with large vessels how will we get our forces and supplies to the places we fight? FedEx?"


But the number we choose to prepare for are policy decisions. They are made by civilians. All wars are "come as you are". So policy drives our options. For many years we had a 2 1/2 war strategy. Today what is our strategy? One on a good day if the wind is at our backs?
Click to expand...

As we're still fighting two right now, I don't think that's true.
 
Whipsnade said:
Are the money spent trying to impeach a President for a bj.:2wave:
Click to expand...
You mean obstruction of justice by the accused rapist William Jefferson BJ Clinton? He lost his law license. And, no doubt still has sex with only the fattest of interns.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If spending = strength, then we should be.

Oh, we still need a military that is stronger than that of Russia. We just shouldn't have to spend six or seven times as much as they do to accomplish that end.
Again, I'm not saying that we need to dump the military, just that we don't have to spend as much as we do in order to be safe.

When it comes to cutting spending, we can't have sacred cows. We can't put a large part of the budget aside and say, "Oh, the cuts will have to come from somewhere else." Everything has to be considered.

Not that it matters. It's not as if we have any real fiscal conservatives elected anyway.
Click to expand...
Are you for the draft then and conscripts? That should bring our military costs in line with most other nations.
 
Boo Radley said:
As we're still fighting two right now, I don't think that's true.
Click to expand...
Where are we fighting two wars?
What is our troop level in Afghanistan? Is it about 130K?

And Iraq? 10K?

Afghanistan requires a million. We are fighting 1/10th of a war.
 
Misterveritis said:
Where are we fighting two wars?
What is our troop level in Afghanistan? Is it about 130K?

And Iraq? 10K?

Afghanistan requires a million. We are fighting 1/10th of a war.
Click to expand...

And over kill at that, doing more nation building than fighting any nation. But two all the same.

Btw, if we really did meter into a huge conflict, the draft is still possible. Just thought I'd mention that.
 
Boo Radley said:
And over kill at that, doing more nation building than fighting any nation. But two all the same.

Btw, if we really did meter into a huge conflict, the draft is still possible. Just thought I'd mention that.
Click to expand...
Which gets us back to come as you are wars.

The One says the war in Iraq is over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom