http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/gov-rick-perry-of-texas-is-indicted-over-veto-of-funds-for-das-office.html?_r=0

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was indicted on two felony counts on Friday by a state grand jury examining his handling of a local district attorney’s drunken driving arrest and the state financing for a public corruption unit under the lawyer’s control.

The indictment was returned late Friday in Austin.

The investigation centered on Mr. Perry’s veto power as governor. His critics asserted that he used that power as leverage to try to get an elected official and influential Democrat and elected official — Rosemary Lehmberg, the district attorney in Travis County — to step down after her arrest for drunken driving last year. Ms. Lehmberg is Austin’s top prosecutor and oversees a powerful public corruption unit that investigates state, local and federal officials; its work led to the 2005 indictment of a former Republican congressman, Tom DeLay on charges of violating campaign finance laws.

Following Ms. Lehmberg’s arrest, Mr. Perry and his aides threatened to veto $7.5 million in state dollars for the public corruption unit in her office unless she resigned. The governor followed through on his threat, vetoing the money by stating that he could not support “continued state funding for an office with statewide jurisdiction at a time when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public’s confidence.”

Mr. Perry’s detractors said that his moves crossed the line from hard-ball politics to criminal acts that violated state laws. His aides denied that he did anything wrong and said that he acted in accordance with the veto power granted to every governor under the Texas Constitution. Ms. Lehmberg resisted calls for her to resign and remains in office.

[several paragraphs removed for brevity, and because you guys have the attention span of gnats]

One night in April 2013, Ms. Lehmberg was found by sheriff’s deputies with an open bottle of vodka in the front passenger seat of her car in a church parking lot in Austin and was arrested for drunken driving. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail.

She plays a powerful role in Austin in overseeing the Public Integrity Unit. At the time of Mr. Perry’s veto last year, prosecutors in the unit had been investigating a state agency called the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, which finances cancer research and prevention programs. The agency — one of Mr. Perry’s signature initiatives — came under scrutiny by state lawmakers after accusations of mismanagement and corruption; a former official there was indicted last year for his handling of an $11 million grant.

Mr. Perry’s critics accused him of using Ms. Lehmberg’s arrest to dismantle the public corruption squad, to thwart the investigation into the cancer-research agency and to seize an opportunity to take down a prominent Democrat.

“The governor has a legitimate statutory role in the legislative process,” said Craig McDonald, the director and founder of Texans for Public Justice, the group that filed the original complaint. “In the case of the Travis County district attorney, the governor had no authority over the district attorney’s job — a district attorney who was elected by Travis County voters and serves exclusively at their will.”

But Mr. Perry’s supporters said the accusations amounted to an attempt to criminalize politics. Republican lawmakers had attempted for years to strip the public corruption unit of state financing, accusing it of pursuing politically motivated prosecutions.

[paragraph removed for brevity]

What he did may be sleezy politics and might even justify impeachment, but I don't understand why it would be criminal.

don't be too quick to judge, maybe it is nothing. You're licking your chops with shameful pride. Let the man have his day in court.

They're all crooks on the right.

They're from a party whose culture is people are stupid and people need to be fooled into voting for us.

That's Republican politics at its very most basic fundamental level. Now thier constituency breaks down into three groups.

1:The truly stupid people that do get fooled into voting Republican.
2:Even dumber people that think they are the smart ones and fooling stupid people to vote Republican is a good thing but doesn't offend them because they know how the game is played and that its for the greater good.
3: Those whom benefit politically from a corrupt system that caters to special interests exclusively.

So that's the three. Now, when that is the constituency you are representing, the culture of corruption you are a party member of.

They're all rotten crooks. Rick Perry just got caught.

There's no room in the Republican party of today or a fuck given about the average hard working middle class American. How are you going to have an honest politician in a party establishment such as that?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2014 08:11PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Dem version:

Suing a President for overstepping his executive authority=bad

Prosecuting a Governor for exercising his executive authority=good.

translation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dem version:
>
> Suing a President for overstepping his executive
> authority=bad
>
> Prosecuting a Governor for exercising his
> executive authority=good.

You're an idiot. Obama temporarily delayed implementation of parts of Obamacare - which, of course, the right wing has tried over 50 times to kill in Congress. Perry tried to strong arm an elected official who got too close to revealing the corruption in a pet project, so he could appoint a puppet in her place. BIG DIFFERENCE.

But I understand. That must have been difficult for you to follow.

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> translation Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dem version:
> >
> > Suing a President for overstepping his
> executive
> > authority=bad
> >
> > Prosecuting a Governor for exercising his
> > executive authority=good.
>
> You're an idiot. Obama temporarily delayed
> implementation of parts of Obamacare - which, of
> course, the right wing has tried over 50 times to
> kill in Congress. Perry tried to strong arm an
> elected official who got too close to revealing
> the corruption in a pet project, so he could
> appoint a puppet in her place. BIG DIFFERENCE.
>
> But I understand. That must have been difficult
> for you to follow.

Only a lib would defend the assassination of American children.

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> translation Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dem version:
> >
> > Suing a President for overstepping his
> executive
> > authority=bad
> >
> > Prosecuting a Governor for exercising his
> > executive authority=good.
>
> You're an idiot. Obama temporarily delayed
> implementation of parts of Obamacare - which, of
> course, the right wing has tried over 50 times to
> kill in Congress.

So, you admit he failed to faithfully execute the Office. The law doesn't say, "shall commence when the President sees fit." There are dates certain to be followed, but the President doesn't give a shit about the law.

> Perry tried to strong arm an
> elected official who got too close to revealing
> the corruption in a pet project, so he could
> appoint a puppet in her place. BIG DIFFERENCE.

He vetoed funding. Nearly every chief executive in government has some sort of veto power, including the President. Do you deny this? The veto power can be used for whatever reason an executive chooses to use it.

> But I understand. That must have been difficult
> for you to follow.

I can understand facts, you might want to try it sometime.

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Only a lib would defend the assassination of
> American children.

Only a flamingly social conservative ignorant of history would try to define abortion as assassination. Before going further you may want to check on the origin of the term "assassin".

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> libs hate America. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Only a lib would defend the assassination of
> > American children.
>
> Only a flamingly social conservative ignorant of
> history would try to define abortion as
> assassination. Before going further you may want
> to check on the origin of the term "assassin".

The more devout, the more corrupt. What is with the religious right? Are they really that F$%ing stupid? Being Texas, maybe they will execute him.

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> translation Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dem version:
> >
> > Suing a President for overstepping his
> executive
> > authority=bad
> >
> > Prosecuting a Governor for exercising his
> > executive authority=good.
>
> You're an idiot. Obama temporarily delayed
> implementation of parts of Obamacare - which, of
> course, the right wing has tried over 50 times to
> kill in Congress. Perry tried to strong arm an
> elected official who got too close to revealing
> the corruption in a pet project, so he could
> appoint a puppet in her place. BIG DIFFERENCE.
>
> But I understand. That must have been difficult
> for you to follow.

I for one appreciate your attempt to combat their lies with logic. Even though the people you are addressing haven't a shred of self respect, I do commend your attempts at retaining sanity in this country.

^ Thanks! I try, but it's like talking to a brick wall. Sometimes I think they actually believe their own crap, which is pretty scary.

So why don't you tell us all....is this highly respected leftwing law professor calling Obama "the President Richard Nixon always wanted to be" because he is a "right winger" or because he is just ignorant? LOL...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/04/turley_obamas_become_the_very_danger_the_constitution_was_designed_to_avoid.html

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You're an idiot.

Look in the mirror.

> Obama temporarily delayed
> implementation of parts of Obamacare - which, of
> course, the right wing has tried over 50 times to
> kill in Congress.

When you're finished admiring yourself........ Obama delayed parts of Obamacare so democrats can get elected in the midterm elections. How stupid are you? I mean, seriously? How stupid are you?

> Perry tried to strong arm an
> elected official who got too close to revealing
> the corruption in a pet project, so he could
> appoint a puppet in her place. BIG DIFFERENCE.

WRONG AGAIN.

Perry tried to get rid of a fucking fat slob of a drunk who
ran the public integrity unit in Travis County.

> But I understand. That must have been difficult
> for you to follow.

Looks like you're the one with trouble following the trail of lies, deception and corruption.

But, shit, you're a democrat who thinks Hamas is a bunch of nice guys.

It's Travis county, and the DA blew a .2 plus. He is perfectly within Texas law.

LOL Just 2 years ago this was going to be the GOP Primary:

Obama's pit bull Eric Holder made all this possible, dont forget Dr.Ben Carson's IRS audit after dissin the prez at prayer meeting.

The Dems are just mad because Perry is actually trying to do something about illegal immigration and he's also feared as a threat to HillBillary.

DebbieDoesEmAll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Dems are just mad because Perry is actually
> trying to do something about illegal immigration
> and he's also feared as a threat to HillBillary.


I think all Dems would love it if Ricky ran.

No crime here. Libs are grasping.
Attachments:

republicans are suffering from $8T of democrats printing
their way into power. which used to come with a death
penalty mind you.

(8 10^12)/((256 10^6)/4

($125,000) per citizen owed by "our dear gov family yr 2000's"

Owed. is it any wonder law suits are demanding it ? not a single.

(per citizen that isn't a gov worker or is in a family of abusive
non-sharing gov workers or profiting largely off insider gov)
(legal citizens). a conservative est. of disparity yet appauling
before a real count.

busch and clinton began with debt and spent allot too: yes. to the
tune of $8 trillion more, 8x more, than than their predecessor ? NO

excuse me. who are the worst transgressors of campaign (and vegas, golf, beach, bongos) financing laws in history. 9x.

democrat sacks of shit are. these are NOT jimmy carter democrats.

i think gov perry should drink two beers , dent that bitches asian car while driving

then start printing a $100 bill on the Texas mint press for every $10 bill obama is printing in DC - to make up for the damn 9x theft

OOPS!

dems and low IQs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh huh... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You're an idiot.
>
> Look in the mirror.
>
> > Obama temporarily delayed
> > implementation of parts of Obamacare - which,
> of
> > course, the right wing has tried over 50 times
> to
> > kill in Congress.
>
> When you're finished admiring yourself........
> Obama delayed parts of Obamacare so democrats can
> get elected in the midterm elections. How stupid
> are you? I mean, seriously? How stupid are you?

He delayed it for a number of reasons. That may be one of them, but that's speculation on your part. You're just pissed that you think he's playing hardball like you people do.

> > Perry tried to strong arm an
> > elected official who got too close to revealing
> > the corruption in a pet project, so he could
> > appoint a puppet in her place. BIG DIFFERENCE.
>
> WRONG AGAIN.
>
> Perry tried to get rid of a fucking fat slob of a
> drunk who
> ran the public integrity unit in Travis County.

Yeah. And voter ID laws are to prevent voter fraud. Come on.

One incident of public intoxication does not an alcoholic make. And he tried to get rid of this woman by holding funding for her group hostage. That's an abuse of power, whether Rick Perry does it or Chris Christie does it.

> > But I understand. That must have been difficult
> > for you to follow.
>
> Looks like you're the one with trouble following
> the trail of lies, deception and corruption.

Oh no. We've seen this Republican sideshow before.

> But, shit, you're a democrat who thinks Hamas is a
> bunch of nice guys.

Actually, I was a Republican until the party went batshit crazy.

nut = whoops, we got it wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's Travis county, and the DA blew a .2 plus.
> He is perfectly within Texas law.

If he could of fired her, he would have. He didn't because he presumably couldn't. Intimidation of an elected public official is not an acceptable alternative.

And I guess you missed the part where he got INDICTED by a grand jury.

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nut = whoops, we got it wrong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's Travis county, and the DA blew a .2 plus.
>
> > He is perfectly within Texas law.
>
> If he could of fired her, he would have. He didn't
> because he presumably couldn't. Intimidation of an
> elected public official is not an acceptable
> alternative.
>
> And I guess you missed the part where he got
> INDICTED by a grand jury.

So, vetoes by an executive are illegal in your view, but failure to follow the law by an executive is perfectly acceptable. You don't even try to think, do you?

model of inconsistency Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh huh... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nut = whoops, we got it wrong Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's Travis county, and the DA blew a .2
> plus.
> >
> > > He is perfectly within Texas law.
> >
> > If he could of fired her, he would have. He
> didn't
> > because he presumably couldn't. Intimidation of
> an
> > elected public official is not an acceptable
> > alternative.
> >
> > And I guess you missed the part where he got
> > INDICTED by a grand jury.
>
> So, vetoes by an executive are illegal in your
> view, but failure to follow the law by an
> executive is perfectly acceptable. You don't even
> try to think, do you?

Obama changed the implementation date for the employer mandate, in part because of concerns from the business community. In a rational world, this would not be a big deal.

Perry's motivation was purely political. He used thug tactics to get his way and intimidate a public official who had the potential to embarrass the Governor. Same kind of tactics the teabaggers use.

The fact that you can't see the difference is truly disturbing.

Conservatives are pissed because they have not yet been able to arrest an american Democratic President. They yearn for it. Trouble is Obummer as they like to call him is literally unimpeachable. They went after bubba for the same things Newt was doing (in spades) - they even used Newt to do it!

Most politicians are corrupt but what really pisses off the most corrupt ones is trying to nail someone that is not corrupt like Obamma. So feel free to counter with the tinfoilhat claims he was not born in the us and he flunked out of Harvard, its all you have.

They have a governor going down every 10 months. Who do you think will be next?

Just warms my heart.....
Attachments:

So it's reasonable to allow a public official, who has a documented lack of integrity, to run a Public Integrity office....

and it's unreasonable for a governor to try to clean house??

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> model of inconsistency Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Uh huh... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > nut = whoops, we got it wrong Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > It's Travis county, and the DA blew a .2
> > plus.
> > >
> > > > He is perfectly within Texas law.
> > >
> > > If he could of fired her, he would have. He
> > didn't
> > > because he presumably couldn't. Intimidation
> of
> > an
> > > elected public official is not an acceptable
> > > alternative.
> > >
> > > And I guess you missed the part where he got
> > > INDICTED by a grand jury.
> >
> > So, vetoes by an executive are illegal in your
> > view, but failure to follow the law by an
> > executive is perfectly acceptable. You don't
> even
> > try to think, do you?
>
> Obama changed the implementation date for the
> employer mandate, in part because of concerns from
> the business community. In a rational world, this
> would not be a big deal.

What authorizes the President to change the law unilaterally? Be specific.

Besides, he did more than delay the employer mandate. Here are a few other unilateral changes (you were obviously unaware of these):

1. Medicare Advantage patch: The administration ordered an advance draw on funds from a Medicare bonus program in order to provide extra payments to Medicare Advantage plans, in an effort to temporarily forestall cuts in benefits and therefore delay early exodus of MA plans from the program. (April 19, 2011)

2. Employee reporting: The administration, contrary to the Obamacare legislation, instituted a one-year delay of the requirement that employers must report to their employees on their W-2 forms the full cost of their employer-provided health insurance. (January 1, 2012)

3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012)

4. Closing the high-risk pool: The administration decided to halt enrollment in transitional federal high-risk pools created by the law, blocking coverage for an estimated 40,000 new applicants, citing a lack of funds. The administration had money from a fund under Secretary Sebelius’s control to extend the pools, but instead used the money to pay for advertising for Obamacare enrollment and other purposes. (February 15, 2013)

5. Doubling allowed deductibles: Because some group health plans use more than one benefits administrator, plans are allowed to apply separate patient cost-sharing limits to different services, such as doctor/hospital and prescription drugs, allowing maximum out-of-pocket costs to be twice as high as the law intended. (February 20, 2013)

6. Small businesses on hold: The administration has said that the federal exchanges for small businesses will not be ready by the 2014 statutory deadline, and instead delayed until 2015 the provision of SHOP (Small-Employer Health Option Program) that requires the exchanges to offer a choice of qualified health plans. (March 11, 2013)

7. Delaying a low-income plan: The administration delayed implementation of the Basic Health Program until 2015. It would have provided more-affordable health coverage for certain low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid. (March 22, 2013)

8. Employer-mandate delay: By an administrative action that’s contrary to statutory language in the ACA, the reporting requirements for employers were delayed by one year. (July 2, 2013)

9. Self-attestation: Because of the difficulty of verifying income after the employer-reporting requirement was delayed, the administration decided it would allow “self-attestation” of income by applicants for health insurance in the exchanges. This was later partially retracted after congressional and public outcry over the likelihood of fraud. (July 15, 2013)

10. Delaying the online SHOP exchange: The administration first delayed for a month and later for a year until November 2014 the launch of the online insurance marketplace for small businesses. The exchange was originally scheduled to launch on October 1, 2013. (September 26, 2013) (November 27, 2013)

11. Congressional opt-out: The administration decided to offer employer contributions to members of Congress and their staffs when they purchase insurance on the exchanges created by the ACA, a subsidy the law doesn’t provide. (September 30, 2013)

12. Delaying the individual mandate: The administration changed the deadline for the individual mandate, by declaring that customers who have purchased insurance by March 31, 2014 will avoid the tax penalty. Previously, they would have had to purchase a plan by mid-February. (October 23, 2013)

13. Insurance companies may offer canceled plans: The administration announced that insurance companies may reoffer plans that previous regulations forced them to cancel. (November 14, 2013)

14. Exempting unions from reinsurance fee: The administration gave unions an exemption from the reinsurance fee (one of ObamaCare’s many new taxes). To make up for this exemption, non-exempt plans will have to pay a higher fee, which will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher premiums and deductibles. (December 2, 2013)

15. Extending Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan: The administration extended the federal high risk pool until January 31, 2014 and again until March 15, 2014 to prevent a coverage gap for the most vulnerable. The plans were scheduled to expire on December 31, but were extended because it has been impossible for some to sign up for new coverage on healthcare.gov. (December 12, 2013) (January 14, 2014)

16. Expanding hardship waiver to those with canceled plans: The administration expanded the hardship waiver, which excludes people from the individual mandate and allows some to purchase catastrophic health insurance, to people who have had their plans canceled because of ObamaCare regulations. The administration later extended this waiver until October 1, 2016. (December 19, 2013) (March 5, 2014)

17. Equal employer coverage delayed: Tax officials will not be enforcing in 2014 the mandate requiring employers to offer equal coverage to all their employees. This provision of the law was supposed to go into effect in 2010, but IRS officials have “yet to issue regulations for employers to follow.” (January 18, 2013)

18. Employer-mandate delayed again: The administration delayed for an additional year provisions of the employer mandate, postponing enforcement of the requirement for medium-size employers until 2016 and relaxing some requirements for larger employers. Businesses with 100 or more employees must offer coverage to 70% of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and beyond. (February 10, 2014)

19. Extending subsidies to non-exchange plans: The administration released a bulletin through CMS extending subsidies to individuals who purchased health insurance plans outside of the federal or state exchanges. The bulletin also requires retroactive coverage and subsidies for individuals from the date they applied on the marketplace rather than the date they actually enrolled in a plan. (February 27, 2014)

20. Non-compliant health plans get two year extension: The administration pushed back the deadline by two years that requires health insurers to cancel plans that are not compliant with ObamaCare’s mandates. These “illegal” plans may now be offered until 2017. This extension will prevent a wave cancellation notices from going out before the 2014 midterm elections. (March 5, 2014)

21. Delaying the sign-up deadline: The administration delayed until mid-April the March 31 deadline to sign up for insurance. Applicants simply need to check a box on their application to qualify for this extended sign-up period. (March 26, 2014)

22. Canceling Medicare Advantage cuts: The administration canceled scheduled cuts to Medicare Advantage. The ACA calls for $200 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years. (April 7, 2014)

23. More Funds for Insurer Bailout: The administration said it will supplement risk corridor payments to health insurance plans with “other sources of funding” if the higher risk profile of enrollees means the plans would lose money. (May 16, 2014)

24. Exempting U.S. territories: Despite earlier administration claims that “HHS is not authorized to choose which provisions [of the ACA] might apply to the territories,” HHS waived six major requirements – such as guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential benefit mandates – that were causing serious disruption to health insurance markets. (July 18, 2014)

> Perry's motivation was purely political. He used
> thug tactics to get his way and intimidate a
> public official who had the potential to embarrass
> the Governor. Same kind of tactics the teabaggers
> use.

Motivation behind a veto, which is a proper exercise of executive authority, is irrelelevant. Dispute this if you can. You can't.

> The fact that you can't see the difference is
> truly disturbing.

The fact that you can't accept facts is truly disturbing! See the facts above that you choose to ignore for an example of your idiocy.

They're droppin like flies, at this rate all they'll have left is Rand Paul. And that's only because Rand Paul isn't really a Republican.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're droppin like flies, at this rate all
> they'll have left is Rand Paul. And that's only
> because Rand Paul isn't really a Republican.


RICK PERRY = TOTAL SCUM

model of inconsistency Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh huh... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Obama changed the implementation date for the
> > employer mandate, in part because of concerns
> from
> > the business community. In a rational world,
> this
> > would not be a big deal.
>
> What authorizes the President to change the law
> unilaterally? Be specific.
>
> Besides, he did more than delay the employer
> mandate. Here are a few other unilateral changes
> (you were obviously unaware of these):

Nobody here read that cut and paste, just as nobody would have read it if I had posted it. In any case, this is the sort of fine tuning that happens when you implement a massive new Government program. It constantly amazes me that the right wing sees everything in black and white. The rest of the world realizes that life is more nuanced.

In any case, about half of those items pertain to implementation dates, some of which had to be changed as the result of problems with the website.

Item 3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012) is bullshit. The restriction to state exchanges is widely recognized to be an inadvertent oversight (often described as 'a spelling error') that the right is attempting to exploit.

The best, however, are item 13. Insurance companies may offer canceled plans: The administration announced that insurance companies may reoffer plans that previous regulations forced them to cancel. (November 14, 2013), item 16. Expanding hardship waiver to those with canceled plans: The administration expanded the hardship waiver, which excludes people from the individual mandate and allows some to purchase catastrophic health insurance, to people who have had their plans canceled because of ObamaCare regulations. The administration later extended this waiver until October 1, 2016. (December 19, 2013) (March 5, 2014) and item 20. Non-compliant health plans get two year extension: The administration pushed back the deadline by two years that requires health insurers to cancel plans that are not compliant with ObamaCare’s mandates. These “illegal” plans may now be offered until 2017. This extension will prevent a wave cancellation notices from going out before the 2014 midterm elections. (March 5, 2014) YOU PEOPLE ASKED FOR THIS - and now you're bitching that you got it.

> > Perry's motivation was purely political. He
> used
> > thug tactics to get his way and intimidate a
> > public official who had the potential to
> embarrass
> > the Governor. Same kind of tactics the
> teabaggers
> > use.
>
> Motivation behind a veto, which is a proper
> exercise of executive authority, is irrelelevant.
> Dispute this if you can. You can't.

If Perry had just cut the funding without tieing it to this woman's resignation, then he would have been on a lot more solid ground. But he didn't. He tried to coerce an elected official into resigning.

> > The fact that you can't see the difference is
> > truly disturbing.
>
> The fact that you can't accept facts is truly
> disturbing! See the facts above that you choose
> to ignore for an example of your idiocy.

Most of the right wing's 'facts' are just politically motivated bullshit. And you people eat this shit up without question.

gets it in the ass again. Too funny.

Deal with the suck.

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> model of inconsistency Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Uh huh... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Obama changed the implementation date for the
> > > employer mandate, in part because of concerns
> > from
> > > the business community. In a rational world,
> > this
> > > would not be a big deal.
> >
> > What authorizes the President to change the law
> > unilaterally? Be specific.
> >
> > Besides, he did more than delay the employer
> > mandate. Here are a few other unilateral
> changes
> > (you were obviously unaware of these):
>
> Nobody here read that cut and paste, just as
> nobody would have read it if I had posted it.

In other words, you prefer to remain willfully and stubbornly stupid. Why bother with facts when you can just make shit up, right?

> In any case, this is the sort of fine tuning that
> happens when you implement a massive new
> Government program.

Circumventing and ignoring the law is NOT fine tuning. It has never happened like this before.

> It constantly amazes me that
> the right wing sees everything in black and white.
> The rest of the world realizes that life is more
> nuanced.

You either follow the law or you don't. It really is that simple.

> In any case, about half of those items pertain to
> implementation dates, some of which had to be
> changed as the result of problems with the
> website.

Wrong, but this isn't your first time.

>
> Item 3. Subsidies may flow through federal
> exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows
> premium assistance tax credits to be available in
> federal exchanges although the law only specified
> that they would be available “through an
> Exchange established by the State under Section
> 1311.” (May 23, 2012) is bullshit. The
> restriction to state exchanges is widely
> recognized to be an inadvertent oversight (often
> described as 'a spelling error') that the right is
> attempting to exploit.

Widely accepted by those who choose to regurgitate the administrations flawed talking points. You fit nicely into that category.

> The best, however, are item 13. Insurance
> companies may offer canceled plans: The
> administration announced that insurance companies
> may reoffer plans that previous regulations forced
> them to cancel. (November 14, 2013), item 16.
> Expanding hardship waiver to those with canceled
> plans: The administration expanded the hardship
> waiver, which excludes people from the individual
> mandate and allows some to purchase catastrophic
> health insurance, to people who have had their
> plans canceled because of ObamaCare regulations.
> The administration later extended this waiver
> until October 1, 2016. (December 19, 2013) (March
> 5, 2014) and item 20. Non-compliant health plans
> get two year extension: The administration pushed
> back the deadline by two years that requires
> health insurers to cancel plans that are not
> compliant with ObamaCare’s mandates. These
> “illegal” plans may now be offered until 2017.
> This extension will prevent a wave cancellation
> notices from going out before the 2014 midterm
> elections. (March 5, 2014) YOU PEOPLE ASKED FOR
> THIS - and now you're bitching that you got it.

Pointing out that the administration refuses to follow the law. See the difference? I bet not.

> > > Perry's motivation was purely political. He
> > used
> > > thug tactics to get his way and intimidate a
> > > public official who had the potential to
> > embarrass
> > > the Governor. Same kind of tactics the
> > teabaggers
> > > use.
> >
> > Motivation behind a veto, which is a proper
> > exercise of executive authority, is
> irrelelevant.
> > Dispute this if you can. You can't.
>
> If Perry had just cut the funding without tieing
> it to this woman's resignation, then he would have
> been on a lot more solid ground. But he didn't. He
> tried to coerce an elected official into
> resigning.

Again, motivation behind a veto is irrelevant. Prove differently.

> > > The fact that you can't see the difference is
> > > truly disturbing.
> >
> > The fact that you can't accept facts is truly
> > disturbing! See the facts above that you
> choose
> > to ignore for an example of your idiocy.
>
> Most of the right wing's 'facts' are just
> politically motivated bullshit. And you people eat
> this shit up without question.

Says the administration's loyal lil parrot.

Like most discussions with rabid right wingers, there's no point in continuing. You are being willfully obtuse and you have no valid arguments. Go back to reading The Blaze and listening to Rush. People like you are why I became a Democrat.

Uh huh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like most discussions with rabid right wingers,
> there's no point in continuing. You are being
> willfully obtuse and you have no valid arguments.
> Go back to reading The Blaze and listening to
> Rush. People like you are why I became a Democrat.


Like most brain dead left wingers, when presented with facts, they cower in a corner and resort to simple name calling. You are clearly no exception. Your parroted talking points have been completely debunked and you pull the Rush card. Unfortunately for you, that is another swing and a miss as I find his show as tiresome as you are. You became a Democrat because you decided to stop thinking for yourself.

Charges laughed out of court.

What a party line piece of shit Gerrymander is.

Where's our Gerrytard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a party line piece of shit Gerrymander is.


aww. you called me "our Gerrytard."

´´´´¶¶¶¶¶¶´´´´´´¶¶¶¶¶¶
´´¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶´´¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
´¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶´´´´¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶´´´´¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶´´¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ´¶¶¶¶¶´
´´¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
´´´´´¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
´´´´´´´¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
´´´´´´´´´¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
´´´´´´´´´´´¶¶¶¶

Such a sanctimonious dickfaced faggot.

I like the word dickface but I like fuckface better.

I got a new one, fiorinaface. That was one bitchface oldtard twat. Rightards are just mad all the time. Trump was right about her face.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was one bitchface oldtard twat.

Elephant in the room Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That was one bitchface oldtard twat.
>
> src=http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/07/old-hi
> llary-clinton.jpg>


Please stop it. I'm trying to eat my lunch. Yuk!