If he's referring to stuff she said in her drunken arrest then I have followed it. I don't take what drunk people say while incapacitated the same as things people do while sober. Perhaps others don't give people more leeway when they're drunk but I don't evaluate someone's worth in their career based on what they say while sh**faced.

If there's some evidence that when she sobered up she attempted to use her position/office to get off the charges then that would be more relevent. From the stories I read, once she sobered up she was contrite.

How many ****ing times do people need to be told that the just who appointed the special prosecutor who brought this before the GJ in the first place is a Republican? Give me a hard number, anybody.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/polit...o-know-him.ece

lol kurto gives people a pass while drunk.... let's see if a drunk rapist gets a break. I'm guessing.... no.

I'm sure Ikes never gives drunk utterings a pass.

And I'm sure Ikes sees no difference between a drunken act of violence and a drunk person saying, "Do you know who I am?"

No need to Ikes it. I'm just glad to know that all around you assume people who are drunk out of there mind are thinking and speaking as their normal character.

It goes a way to explain the positions you took in the rape thread.

Why don't rapists who are drunk out of their minds getting this same break kurto?

If you don't understand why I would treat a drunk person's verbal outburst different then a rapist I don't think I can help you.

In respect to this thread, the tape and her verbal outbursts were all included when she went to court. And it was determined by the courts that it wasn't an issue. And she still had written support from 170 attorneys supporting her.

So... I'm not going to worry too much that you separate the seriousness of a verbal utterance and rape. As far as this case goes, it still does nothing to excuse Rick Perry. I'm sorry if you and Rick think she should have been removed - it doesn't excuse him.

Kurto I get why we treat verbal outbursts differently than violent ones.... the question isn't why we treat them the same. It's why you're willing to give one a break but not the other. Do you propose treating drunk rapists differently than a person who does the same thing sober?

(also, still on lol you just can't understand how courts aren't the final arbiter of you having a job if it's inconvenient to your argument huh?)

But I'm willing to bet that you and I wouldn't really disagree on if there's any reason to treat certain crimes differently regardless of sobriety.

That being said, I'm pretty sure most of us (I'm not speaking for you) understand that things said while being drunk are treated with a bucket of salt. People say things drunk they don't mean, that they often don't remember that may be ugly but aren't criminal, abnormal or an indication of a person's true character. Or is a drunken utterance an indication of one's ability to do their job. As such, I'm willing to excuse someone acting belligerent towards others when drunk if the stupid things they say drunk are not reflective of their actions when sober. Again, you may be different in this regard, but I suspect most people are flexible in this area.

Umm... obviously in this case it was relevent since as its been stated several times, they specifically addressed this in court. No matter how many times you say the courts aren't the arbiter, it clearly was addressed by the courts. The issue of her removal was specifically attempted through the courts... one has to wonder why they were going through the courts since internet Expert Ikes says they aren't the arbiter?!?! Obviously you know something the Texas prosecutors office didn't! If only they'd called Ikes!

from wiki:
I know this won't be meaningful to you but the fact that 170 lawyers went out of their way to support her is a good indication that others in her profession also disagree with you.

Finally, its worth noting that Perry's position on Lehmberg looks like political BS... we infer this because let's look at some other similar incidents with drunk drivers and Perry:
LINKEE

Nothing to see here!

itt talking and penetration are all just outbursts of one sort or another, what's the difference?

Apparently it's pretty hard since most people don't get it.

If Perry has the power to remove the DA, he should remove her.

If he doesn't have the power, then he shouldn't be able to force her out or make her ineffective by withholding money.

Actually, no, it's still not hard.

The Dui was less then half the objectionable actions by the DA. If you can find a true comparison where someone with power threatened the police with charges/ jail, was violent to the point of having to be restrained, and threatened to have them fired then maybe you would have a true comparison.

Well, he has the power to veto away the office, so guess what? We're done right?

amazing

I mean..... you guys are just falling apart over your hatred for Perry. He has a specific power in his hand that allows him to do exactly what he did. You don't get to make an argument, well, he needs the power to do this when explicitly does. Perry derangement syndrome is real.

should I be surprised that it seems you don't understand the charges. No one is denying that he has veto power.

Also - I really doubt there's a lot of hate for Perry like you pretend people have. I'm guessing most people just kind of think of him as an amusing caricature based on his debating goofs. You're attempt to rationalize everyone who disagrees with you as based on Perry hatred falls flat.

lolol read the posts kurto, im referencing 13s response, not charges

Every time ikes posts I'm more inclined to believe Perry should be convicted.

No, the question is can the legislature limit Perry's veto power in any way.

Maybe the answer is "no" in Texas, but that's definitely something the courts can decide, right?

The legislature can override any veto that they believe is improper.

Obviously. That's not the question.

Let's say that the legislature passed a law that said "The governor may not use a veto to coerce a public official."

Can they make such a law? Perry argues no, which basically means that governors can use a veto to coerce a public official.

Rofl they can, they can get a god damn supermajority bro.... Just embarrassing

They can, it would just have to go through whatever constitutional amendment process that Texas has.

Posts like this aren't going to convince me that you've done the slightest bit of thinking on this.

There are two things here: the veto itselfand using the veto in an illegal way. Just because Perry has veto power, that doesn't mean he can necessarily break OTHER LAWS with a veto.

It might, but that's why the courts are going to decide it.

Is there a court decision that says that?

The question is not about the use of the veto. Perry had a right to use the veto. If he said nothing and vetoed the funding for this program that would have been clearly ok. Even if he said "gee, this person should not be in charge of any government program or money" and vetoed the program again ok. The Texas legislature can not make how or what he veto's illegal without a constitutional amendment.

The battle is more about the "threat" prior to the veto. The legislature has the ability to pass laws preventing government officials from doing certain actions. The question is whether threatening to do a legal activity falls under how the statute defines coercion. If so, does the legislature have the power to make Perry threatening doing something he has a legal right to do illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...oercion-count/