TX Gov Rick Perry Indicted On 2 Felony Corruption Charges

"A Travis County grand jury Friday indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two charges related to his effort last year to force District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign after her drunken driving arrest.

Grand jurors charged Perry, 64, with abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony, and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony. The first charge carries a punishment of 5-99 years and a fine of up to $10,000. The second charge is punishable by 2-10 years and a fine of up to $10,000.

The indictment stems from Perry’s threat last summer to withhold $7.5 million in state money from Lehmberg’s office unless she step down – a threat he later carried out by vetoing an appropriation in the state budget."


No votes yet


Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Except Perry is within the Constitution, while Obama exceeds it, in some cases.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

He's not within Texas law, and nice diversion with the but but OBAMA! crap, my TeaTarded friend.

This will backfire on the Dems in Travis County.

This also has the potential to raise Perry's standing for 2016.


Yeah, you Republicans like electing corrupt people to high office, don'tcha?

Yeah-yeah-yeah. I don't like to see a crook in high places. But if there's going to be a crook elected, it might as well be MY crook that gets elected!

Or appointed, since Perry gets to appoint the D.A.'s replacement, which is also the person who runs the Public Integrity Unit, you know, the watchdog that's supposed to make sure everything the Governor and so on do is on the up-and-up.

You heard it here first.

Dems like AC support drunk driver's in office.


Did I say that? No.

Question for you: Did you vote for Bush/Cheney either time?

Actually you did.

You assume Perry is corrupt for using his state constitutional powers correctly to try and remove a Democrat who was convicted of drunk driving.

Oh I know where you're going with Bush and Cheney. The problem with your analogy is 1) neither was in office when it occurred 2) they didn't prosecute people for the exact same offense 3) their prosecutions are not in legal jeopardy because of their DUI's.

It's one thing to make a mistake before holding office and to learn from it. It's another to make a mistake in office and refuse to give up said office.


You support drunk drivers in office, you chose to vote for and elect two of them to be President and Vice President.

You points are therefore invalid.

You support taking legal actions against an executive while in office. Your points are therefore invalid.


The legality of Perry's actions is in question, hence why a GRAND JURY indicted him. That is how our system works, like it or not. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Mind you, if you want to talk about taking legal action against a sitting executive somehow being wrong or something, well... BILL CLINTON AND BOEHNER'S LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA, YOU HYPOCRITICAL FUCKING ASSHOLE.

Now shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down before you dig yourself and your fellow Republicans here deeper into the shit hole. Seriously, you have just twice now set the record on Republican hypocrisy here. What the fuck is wrong with you? You've twice shoved words in my mouth and I am really fucking sick of it. Why don't you get something for your butthurt and come back when you can think clearly again? Seriously, this isn't like you. Get checked out by a medic, I think you suffered some sort of brain trauma.

No, what I've done is showed Democrats, like you, are supportive of elected officials who put the safety of citizens in danger staying in office, even when their lack of judgement means that previous work in the name of the people can now be undone. This is not me putting words into your mouth, it was you who described Perry as corrupt while ignoring the DA's actions. AND I've shown that you are very tolerant of taking actions within the court system vice the normal governmental checks and balances when you change the letter describing the persons political affiliations.

So maybe you should sit down you partisan hack.


Did I say anything about SUPPORTING the D.A. that had the DUI? FUCK NO.

Did I ignore her actions? FUCK NO.

Did you, in your rush to fellate Great Republican Presidential Hope Rick Perry and defend all things GOP, happen to ignore the fact that a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, NOT THE D.A. IN QUESTION, put the question to a grand jury, which returned the indictment? FUCK YES.

Therefore, you put words in my mouth, you partisan asshole.

You, then, decided that wasn't enough, and doubled down on your stupidity by saying "Dems like AC support drunk driver's in office." (YOUR EXACT WORDS, ASSHOLE!) Which is a good one, since YOU VOTED FOR TWO CONVICTED DRUNK DRIVERS, GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, TO HOLD THE TWO HIGHEST OFFICES IN THE GODDAMN WORLD, Then you made a SIMPLY PATHETIC attempt to back your ass out of it by adding a whole pile of qualifications after the fact since you can't rescind your original comment. "1) neither was in office when it occurred" BUT ACCORDING TO YOU IT'S FINE TO VOTE KNOWN CONVICTED DRUNK DRIVERS TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO ORDER YOUR MILITARY ASS AROUND AND POSSESS THE NUCLEAR LAUNCH CODES, AS IF IT MAKES SENSE THAT ONE SHOULD ELECT SOMEONE WITH SUCH BAD JUDGEMENT TO THOSE OFFICES. "2) they didn't prosecute people for the exact same offense". That's true, instead THEY RAN THE GODDAMN UNITED STATES FOR EIGHT YEARS DESPITE HAVING A CRIMINAL HISTORY OF POOR JUDGEMENT, so if you want to make issue of some podunk dumbass D.A. in Texas getting a DUI AFTER YOU ELECTED TWO DRUNKS TO RUN THE USA, you have blown all your credibility and ability to have a problem with this right out the fuckin' window, Mikey,

You won't even discuss the merit of the charges against Perry, hence all the ad hominem attacks on the D.A. (despite the fact, which you deliberately ignored, that a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (FROM A CONSERVATIVE AREA NO LESS!) was brought in.)

Does Rick Perry have the right to tell her to resign? FUCK YES.
Does the D.A., BY LAW, *HAVE* to resign? FUCK NO. (and this was decided in court!)
Does Rick Perry have the right to veto funding under Texas law? FUCK YES.

And for the crux of the matter: Does Rick Perry have the right to say "Resign or I veto funding for your department"? Because he made that threat and carried through on it, which a grand jury decided, according to the DUE PROCESS OF LAW, *might* be a felony violation of two parts of Texas law.

Perry has a vital self-interest in this case: If the D.A. quits, HE GETS TO APPOINT A NEW D.A. TO THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY DIVISION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING HIM AND EVERYONE ELSE. In other words, he gets to pick the Top Cop who gets to watch over him to see if he's doing any dirty dealings. Major conflict of interest there, don'tcha think, Mikey?

Rick Perry could have kept his mouth shut entirely and just vetoed funding for the Public Integrity Division AND THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM. Instead, he stupidly opened his pie-hole and made a public threat, probably thinking that he would win in either case (either she quit and he got his choice person in place, or he vetoed the funding and the now-crippled unit would be incapable of doing anything), and instead landed himself in deep shit.

You, Mikey, put words in my mouth to claim I support a dumbass drunk-driving D.A. while you yourself voted for George W. Bush, a convicted drunk driver, and Dick Cheney, a twice-convicted drunk driver, to be POTUS and VPOTUS respectively, in your rush to defend Rick Perry, who was a dumbass with bad judgement to make an open threat in a situation where he stood to gain REGARDLESS (since he's already under investigation from my understanding anyway) , and who was previously and will possibly once again be a Republican candidate for POTUS.

I respectfully submit, sir, that if anyone here is a hypocritical, biased, ignorant, uninformed, disingenuous, partisan hack who is "supportive of elected officials who put the safety of citizens in danger" through a "lack of judgement", it is YOU, and YOU fully support any action that takes down a Democrat but no Republican can do anything wrong EVER in your book, since YOU are the one who takes issue with one drunk-driving podunk D.A.'s "lack of judgement" based on party affiliation and ONLY WHEN a Republican lands himself in hot water by openly making what may be an illegal threat but WILLFULLY IGNORE the same "lack of judgement" in driving drunk WHEN ELECTING REPUBLICANS TO BE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT.

I'll grant you this rare opportunity, Mikey. You apologize for sticking words in my mouth and otherwise being a hypocritical partisan hack and admit that Perry royally screwed the pooch by opening his trap, and I'll apologize for losing my temper with you and your B.S. But that's all you are going to get.

"Did I ignore her actions? FUCK NO."

Please show me where you address her actions in your statement. "Yeah, you Republicans like electing corrupt people to high office, don'tcha?" I don't see it. So yeah, I'm standing by what I said.

"Did you, in your rush to fellate Great Republican Presidential Hope Rick Perry and defend all things GOP, happen to ignore the fact that a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, NOT THE D.A. IN QUESTION, put the question to a grand jury, which returned the indictment? FUCK YES." No I didn't ignore it. I actually addressed that Perry used his constitutional powers. He has a sworn duty to the citizens of Texas.

Bush and Cheney both received DUIs, true. I don't deny it. I also state they learned from their mistakes. In the case of Bush he no longer drinks. A mistake when young shouldn't keep a person from serving as long as they learned their lesson. In the case of the DA, she was in her 60s, she knew the reprecussions, she even tried to get the Sherrif involved to prevent it from being reported. So yes, she should have resigned and Perry was doing a service to the citizens of Texas for calling for her resignation.

"it is YOU, and YOU fully support any action that takes down a Democrat but no Republican can do anything wrong EVER in your book, since YOU are the one who takes issue with one drunk-driving podunk D.A.'s "lack of judgement" based on party affiliation and ONLY WHEN a Republican lands himself in hot water by openly making what may be an illegal threat but WILLFULLY IGNORE the same "lack of judgement" in driving drunk WHEN ELECTING REPUBLICANS TO BE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT." You couldn't be farther from correct on me. If it were a Republican in office I'd most definitely call for their resignation. If it were within 5 years of them running for office I'd declare them unfit (if it happened when in their advanced adult life I'd similarly declare them unfit). People make mistakes when they're young. It is actually the best way to learn. It's when they're older and either didn't learn from their mistakes that I have a problem. Look at my lack of criticism for President Obama taking a vacation, I will criticize when I feel criticism is due.

If it were a Republican DA and a Democrat Governor I'd still say the Governor is doing the people's work. I do not agree with your assertion that Perry should not have sent a warning. A Governor should be able to speak freely on matters of the people. He gave the DA a chance to take the high road. She didn't. It wasn't just him publicly calling for her resignation, it was some Democrats too, that part was bipartisan.


Please show me where you address her actions in your statement. "Yeah, you Republicans like electing corrupt people to high office, don'tcha?" I don't see it. So yeah, I'm standing by what I said.

Show me where I HAVE to address her actions. I DON'T. The subject at hand is Rick Perry's indictment. You are the one defending Rick Perry's actions by blaming the D.A. and making it out like she MADE Rick Perry open his mouth. Going on about her actions only serves to distract from the issue at hand (Rick Perry's indictment).

"Did you, in your rush to fellate Great Republican Presidential Hope Rick Perry and defend all things GOP, happen to ignore the fact that a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, NOT THE D.A. IN QUESTION, put the question to a grand jury, which returned the indictment? FUCK YES." No I didn't ignore it. I actually addressed that Perry used his constitutional powers. He has a sworn duty to the citizens of Texas.

He can't fire her per Texas law. I hate to break this to your ignorant self, since you will ignore it, but in Texas, the legislature has the power to IMPEACH executive branch officials, and isn't the D.A. a member of the executive branch? All he had to do was say "I think the Legislature should impeach". Read the fucking Texas Constitution, you ignorant ass.

His SOLE constitutional power in this case is a line-item veto, which was perfectly legal until he made the threat of "resign or I veto your department's funding", which the dumbass duly did.


Count I - Abuse of Official Capacity, to wit: misuse of government property (funds for the Public Integrity Unit) in using it to coerce the D.A. to leave office
Count II - Coercion of a Public Official, to wit: threatening to veto funding unless the D.A. resigned.

You continue to ignore the simple fact that Rick Perry dun goofed. Rick Perry USED POOR JUDGEMENT. He FUCKED UP. Just like Dumbass DUI D.A. fucked up and gave everyone an opening to go after her for her lack of judgement. He could have gone to the Texas Legislature and said "I think you need to impeach her." He could have said nothing and just vetoed the funding, thus GREATLY REDUCING the odds that he could be indicted for abuse of office, since it'd be damn hard to argue intent without his direct threat. He, in a case of poor judgement, being also the person who appoints her replacement, issued a threat of "resign or I'll veto your department's funding." That's an act of coercion. He attempted to persuade her by use of force or threats. Again, since it does not seem to sink through your terminally thick skull, he can say "I think you should resign." He can veto the department's funding. When he says "resign or I veto your funding", that crosses the line into coercion. Do you get that or are you just going to be fucking stupid, Mikey?

Let's turn this around and use a theoretical situation involving that black guy you don't like as an example. If Boehner got a DUI, Obama can't fire him, but the House can impeach him and remove him from office. If Obama says "I think Boehner should resign" that is perfectly legal. If Obama vetoes a bill that funds the Speaker's office, or of the House, that's perfectly legal. If Obama says "Boehner, resign or I veto funding for the Speaker's office or House of Representatives", you'd be joining your fellow TeaTards in riots in the streets demanding the immediate removal of Obama from office for coercion and abuse of office. Is that not true?

Don't forget guys, that Perry promised 100K a head to illegal aliens for educational purposes during the last debates, and nothing for the Texan citizens. Besides, all educated and decent people know a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. I predict a deal will now follow, or a not guilty verdict will be returned.

Perry has been indicted for the same reason Obama is being sued -- abuse of executive power. Is Perry's prosecution politically motivated? Probably. Is the lawsuit against Obama politically motivated? Almost certainly. The courts will decide if either or both actions have legal standing.
My point is, it's hypocritical to find that the action against either Perry or Obama is absolutely non-political and not see that the similar action against the other IS political. It's hypocritical to find that the action against either Perry or Obama is without merit, but to find that the action against the other HAS merit. That is up to the courts.

Oh Dale, you're so wrong.

First, Perry has been indicted, which is a CRIMINAL proceeding, meaning a grand jury found enough merit for a criminal case against Perry to proceed to the courts. Obama is being sued, which is a CIVIL action undertaken by Boehner, because Boehner and the GOP are butthurt and think they can convince a judge to get involved and tell Obama to stop Presidenting While Black, or something. Those are two entirely different things here and you're comparing apples to eggplants.

Second, for anyone to claim the action against Perry is political/a partisan witch hunt:

Naturally, Perry and his fellow Republicans are calling the indictments against Perry the result of a partisan investigation by an office controlled by Democrats — the same office that prosecuted former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican, later acquitted on appeal.

But Lehmberg and other Travis County officials recused themselves from the case and are not prosecuting it. One year ago a Republican judge from Bexar County, Bert Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to handle the prosecution.

McCrum, a criminal defense attorney in San Antonio, is a former Dallas police officer who began his career as a federal prosecutor during the George H.W. Bush administration, according to his online bio. In 2009, the state's two Republican U.S. senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, recommended him to become U.S. attorney for the Western District, according to published reports.

He was described as a “consensus choice” by the news site Main Justice because he had the backing of House Democrats and the two home state senators. He ultimately withdrew his name because of gridlock over nominations on Capitol Hill.

McCrum’s bipartisan credentials makes criticizing the investigation as a partisan witch hunt a tougher sell.

One of many important points MikeyA seems to have forgotten in his rush to defend Perry.

And third... oops, I forgot the third thing! ;-)

No, wait, here it is. The Public Integrity Unit has been probing the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas over favoritism in the awarding of public money grants, most of which went to large Republican donors. In fact, there's already one indictment stemming from improperly awarded grants!



Let's see now. The PIU was probing some dirty dealings possibly involving Rick Perry, the D.A. makes a dumbass move and gets a DUI, and Rick Perry cannot legally fire her or remove her from office (though per my reading of the Texas Constitution the legislature could remove her, and that's something he could presumably ask the Lt. Gov to introduce in the legislature). If the D.A. quits, Perry gets to appoint a new D.A. So Perry says "quit or I cut all your funding", she refuses to quit, Perry cuts the funding of a unit investigating a multi-billion "cancer research fund" that appears to be paying kickback to Republican donors.

Motive, Method, Opportunity. Motive: shut down, slow down, or otherwise interfere in an investigation by a special prosecutor looking into dirty dealings possibly going right back to Perry. Method: remove the person in charge of the department or remove funding from the department. Opportunity: D.A. gets a DUI creating grounds to get her out of office or otherwise have what appears to be a valid claim to cut funding for a department because you have no confidence in the department's head,

Except that oh, you fucked up and said publicly "resign or I cut your funding" and then proceeded to cut the funding when the D.A. refused to quit (which would allow you to appoint your choice if person who you could then tell to fire the Special Prosecutor, in the BEST NIXONIAN METHOD, I might add). So some citizens complained about this and Mr. Special Prosecutor did some interviews and then went to a grand jury and came back with two FELONY indictments.

I'm sorry, Dale, but the political motivation here looks a lot like Perry trying to keep the PIU from finding his hand in the cookie jar and having completely fucked up a golden opportunity to do so handed to him on a silver platter by the head of the department. Perry dun goofed and now has called all sorts of attention to this right when he's about to go kick off his 2016 presidential aspirations campaign. All the crying out of MikeyA and company is just to try to do damage control and sweep the mess under the rug with "PARTISAN WITCH HUNT!" accusations before Perry has to report in for booking, fingerprinting, and his mugshots.

Yes it is a witch hunt. Because the Republicans made the DA drink all that alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car.

Personal responsibility AC. If the Dems are concerned about Perry utilizing his Constitutional actions maybe just maybe they should stop giving him opportunites to take advantage of.


All that booze? The cops found a half empty fifth of vodka in her car, and the audacity and unmitigated gall to arrest her? There's people on this forum that swill that much alcohol every day. Wasn't that pic of her in her "easy chair", with her matching spit muzzle great? And Perry, he's the M-F in this case? Picture this scenario: you're sitting in a bar, and she comes staggering up to you, and says: "hey baby, I think I'm in love"?

But remember it's Perry who's "corrupt" for threatening to do his job as given to him in the state constitution.


Keep on repeating those lies and talking points and fornicating with that chicken, Mikey.

He does NOT have the power to remove the D.A., that is designated to the Legislature via impeachment.

His job does not say "the governor shall remove people by making threats to cut funding unless the person resigns".

The D.A. is not the subject here. Rick Perry's actions in response to hers are. You keep changing the subject.

Constitutional actions?

I've said this like fifteen times, so it's clear that you're just out to fornicate the chicken at this point by keeping up with the Fox News Big Lie "repeat bullshit until people start believing it to be true" propaganda technique, but here we go once again:



Do you not understand this? Does your density put black holes to shame?

attorneys have had DUIs during Perry's years as governor. Nothing was done by Perry to either one of them. They are both Republicans. So, who started this partisan attack? Rick, (former Democrat, himself), Perry! That's who.

That we have problems on both sides of the isle. So now what do WE THE PEOPLE do about it.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I looked up each case. In one, the DA received an internal party primary and lost not surprisingly the primary contender was announced shortly after the DA lost his appeal and I'd guess the state party had something to do with that. In the other case the DUI came from out of state and thus didn't affect any rulings within the state. I still think both are reprehensible and neither are worthy of serving the people. Not surprisingly one had another DUI while the other lost his license for ethics. DUIs are the symptom of poor judgement that usually permeates the rest of their lives. Rarely ever are they just a one time mistake.

What I couldn't find in my research is where either of the DA's were responsible for a state entity that relied upon state funding like the Public Integrity Unit. If they didn't then there Perry would not have had the opportunity to veto. What would the point be of issuing a threat without anything to back it up?


Alcohol is the most abused drug in America, and in much of the world. Those who drink and drive are more dangerous than almost anything we face on a daily basis. DUI offenses should not be taken lightly. But, before one dismisses ANY employee, mitigating circumstances and what that person has done AFTER being caught should determine punishment.
I have not researched this issue enough to comment definitively, but, if one is to be removed for one such offense, that should be done by the voters, or, in this case at least, by the proper constitutional procedure. It is my understanding that the Texas State Legislature does have the authority to remove this office-holder. Republicans currently hold a 17-12 (2 vacancies) hold on the Texas Senate; and a 95-55 majority in the Texas House. Why didn't Perry simply ask for the legislature to handle this issue?

You should have your doctor write the DA a note extolling the virtues of staying drunk as a skunk.

You are so hung up on my one glass of wine per night! Is one glass of wine per night your definition of "staying drunk as a skunk?" You've already stated that "No one can drink just one drink." Are you referring to yourself?

I was drunk once in my life. It was over 30 years ago. I was not driving. I had my one and only hangover. I never wanted to feel that way again, and I never have.

Is there someone in your family who has a drinking problem?
Get some counseling, G-MAN!

He's trolling, just like Mikey is, and our great absentee landlord is allowing them to get our goat because their political views are the "right and proper" views, don'tcha know?

Cheers to that one glass of wine, or two.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

It's almost always one only. I'm too cheap to drink two per night.


" You've already stated that "No one can drink just one drink."
You are a liar.

How many have you had today? Yesterday? The day before?
See a counselor, PLEASE!

I couldn't keep up with you.

At the direction of both my primary care physician and my cardiologist, I take one aspirin every night. And, if I have a headache or body aches, I sometimes take more than one!

BTW, G-MAN -- How many adult beverages have you consumed today?
I wonder why you never answer that question?
If you have a problem, don't ignore it. I strongly suggest counseling.

"" You've already stated that "No one can drink just one drink."

You are still a liar.

Could you be deep in the sauce again?

He's trolling you and winning. Just keep clicking that Report link, not that Chris will respond to it. It's the new tactic for the radical right here to annoy us, since we threaten their image and agenda. They don't want to, you know, work on making the GOP more palatable to the masses by giving up their racism, sexism, homophobia, and worship of the rich, as evidenced by how they bitch about Stainbrook yet can't seem to remove him, and how they claim Dems are the only ones talking impeachment yet random Republicans (whose actions they can conveniently deny) keep talking about how Obama needs to be impeached while WorldNetDaily runs an "impeachment store" on their website.

Chris does Liberals a public service by running a site where the finest attributes of local Republicans and Tea Party members (but I repeat myself as top Republican Boehner said they're the same thing!) are displayed to the public, including their new trollish behavior to sidetrack the discussion and to act as if something's not been said six times prior in the discussion and to pretend to not know the definition of simple words. It's nice to be able to say "look at the prime example of low-information Republicans over at SwampBubbles who get together for their daily circle-jerk over a plagiarism of some other right-wing nut's blog post on how Obama is responsible for absolutely everything and simultaneously the most evil radical dictator ever AND an empty do-nothing suit who takes more vacation than both Bushes combined."

"What would the point be of issuing a threat without anything to back it up?"

Uh, not getting in criminal trouble for coercion?

Again, D.A.s in Texas are elected. The law doesn't give Perry the power to remove the D.A., but the Legislature (full of Republicans) has the power to impeach and remove her. So why didn't Rick Perry go to the Lt. Gov, who is part of the Legislature, and say "kick off impeachment"? Or even "pass a bill that gives me the power to fire D.A.s"?

Perry dun goofed up royally, just admit it already.

The Executive has the right to weigh in on any matters within the state. Calling for a representatives resignation after wrongdoing is not coercion, if that were true then Obama would be guilty several times over, i.e. if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon Martin would then be coercion using your definition.

No Legislature likes being told what to do by the Executive branch regardless of what party either are.

Read the Texas State Constitution, I have, the powers of the Governor are some of the weakest powers I've seen of any other state. To do what you're suggesting would require a constitutional amendment. Three DA's in a 10 year period doesn't really warrant that. Lehmberg case is more significant than the first two because 1) her conduct in the videos that made it to the public 2) her position with the PIU. Thus Perry taking action was appropriate.


That's enough. You are being deliberately obtuse and are trolling.

I've already pointed out, many times, that yes, Perry has the right to call for the D.A. to resign.

Your terminally thick trollish TeaTard skull misses that it becomes COERCION when A THREAT IS ATTACHED.

You have the right to ask me for $20. That's free speech.

You say "give me $20 or I kill your dog", that's coercion.


So when Obama says that if "Congress doesn't act" he will have to "go it alone" according to you he's being corrupt and coercive. Correct?


Of course you're correct. Perry has the right to veto democrat spendthrift plans as he sees fit. He should also use an executive order to ban vodka sales in Travis Co.

Stop your trolling, Mikey. You're giving the GOP a bad name.

If I'm trolling you can push the little report button.

In fact, per your previous discussions the one who is trolling is you because you used my SN in the subject line.

I'm just using your logic against you. I'm sorry logic disagrees with you.


Oh look, Mikey trolls again!

When you're already participating in the discussion, calling you out isn't trolling.

When you're nowhere near the discussion and someone drags you in by calling you out, that's a problem.

Do you understand the difference? I'm sure you do, because you just trolled again, Mikey.

Stop wasting our taxpayer dollars and get the fuck back to work, troll.

Then report me if I'm doing it and we'll let Chris figure it out.

Either way stop whining.

My pay and benefits are currently not paid by US taxpayers.


Get drummed out, did ya?


No, I am still in the military. But I am currently on a diplomatic mission. The country we are supporting is paying the bill for everything.

I'm staying in a Presidential suite. I don't pay a dime of it.

Life is good when you're good at your job and you get selected for great billets.


So you are wasting non-American taxpayer dollars? Please tell us more.

Your pay and bennies aren't being paid by the taxpayers??

Anonymous white trash can't say that!

They also pay twice my salary. They are putting us up in some nice hotels. I am in a Presidential suite.

I am making almost twice my salary in per diem per day. If you can afford the plane ticket I'll let you use my guest room Billy.


Good thing DADT is gone thus allowing you to do that sort of thing. Not that there is anything wrong with it, of course.

DADT never affected guests staying in a guest room.


I can agree with that.


He's not going to jail, but hopefully this WILL keep him from running.

Is this a death penalty case just like the Brown incident?



Can't wait to take 30 seconds to read your book.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.