Hammer to the slammer
landotter
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/10/delay.sentencing/?hpt=T2
My schadenfreude levels are peaking...
Les Albert
Yeah, but:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeLay was immediately taken into custody, but Priest granted a request
from his attorneys that he be released on a $10,000 bond pending
appeal once he is processed at the county jail. Prosecutors said it
could mean DeLay will be free for months or even years as his appeal
makes it through the Texas court system.
http://tinyurl.com/4mxazll
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les
Paul Ciszek
In article <e66d61e9-5930-4252...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
What makes you think he will serve his actual sentence? Seeing as how
he didn't go straight from the courtroom to the slammer, there is a good
chance he will avoid serving any time at all.
BTW, which countries are considered not-so-bad to live in and do not
extradite fugatives to the USA? Any time someone convicted of crimes
that involve misallocating large sums of money, they should be
automatically considered a flight risk.
--
Please reply to: | "The anti-regulation business ethos is based on
pciszek at panix dot com | the charmingly naive notion that people will not
Autoreply is disabled | do unspeakable things for money." -Dana Carpender
Jeff Green
> BTW, which countries are considered not-so-bad to live in and do not
> extradite fugatives to the USA? Any time someone convicted of crimes
> that involve misallocating large sums of money, they should be
> automatically considered a flight risk.
Northern Ireland.
J
N Jill Marsh
The UK doesn't have an extradition agreement with the USA? Since
when?
nj"buh?"m
--
"All I can say is that the work has been done well in every way."
D.F. Manno
<e66d61e9-5930-4252...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
If and when he serves his time and is released, expected him to join the
long line of right-wingers supporting prison reform.
Funny how that group consists only of right-wingers who have done time.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
Rick B.
news:igg9lf$dd6$4...@reader1.panix.com:
> BTW, which countries are considered not-so-bad to live in and do not
> extradite fugatives to the USA?
Depending on your values for not so bad: ex-USSR except the Baltic states,
most of the Middle East, Indonesia, Taiwan, big chunks of Africa and mainland
Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties
Chris
news:hkeni61bqo42jusk6...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:52:10 -0500, Jeff Green
> <jeffin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/10/2011 7:53 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> BTW, which countries are considered not-so-bad to live in and do not
>>> extradite fugatives to the USA? Any time someone convicted of crimes
>>> that involve misallocating large sums of money, they should be
>>> automatically considered a flight risk.
>>
>>Northern Ireland.
>
> The UK doesn't have an extradition agreement with the USA? Since
> when?
>
> nj"buh?"m
>
According to some US trolls, there is an extradition treaty - The US courts
order extradition, us Brits rubber stamp it.
But at least we do jail our politicians when they go wrong.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/07/david-chaytor-mp-jailed-expenses>
(Ollie gives a cheerful wag of his rudder to Aunty Jill)
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
>"N Jill Marsh" <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hkeni61bqo42jusk6...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:52:10 -0500, Jeff Green
>> <jeffin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 1/10/2011 7:53 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>> BTW, which countries are considered not-so-bad to live in and do not
>>>> extradite fugatives to the USA? Any time someone convicted of crimes
>>>> that involve misallocating large sums of money, they should be
>>>> automatically considered a flight risk.
>>>
>>>Northern Ireland.
>>
>> The UK doesn't have an extradition agreement with the USA? Since
>> when?
>
>According to some US trolls, there is an extradition treaty - The US courts
>order extradition, us Brits rubber stamp it.
Yes, that's what I thought. The Republic of Ireland also has an
extradition agreement with the US.
>(Ollie gives a cheerful wag of his rudder to Aunty Jill)
He is a Good Dog.
nj"I can tell"m
landotter
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:58:55 -0800 (PST), landotter
>
Damn premature schadenfreude.
landotter
> In article
> <e66d61e9-5930-4252-81b6-5127d547e...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Delay gets three years actual time.
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/10/delay.sentencing/?hpt=T2
>
> > My schadenfreude levels are peaking...
>
> If and when he serves his time and is released, expected him to join the
> long line of right-wingers supporting prison reform.
>
> Funny how that group consists only of right-wingers who have done time.
Three years without Stetson cologne and brisket will probably drive
him mad, no doubt.
Jeff Green
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:52:10 -0500, Jeff Green
> <jeffin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2011 7:53 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> BTW, which countries are considered not-so-bad to live in and do not
>>> extradite fugatives to the USA? Any time someone convicted of crimes
>>> that involve misallocating large sums of money, they should be
>>> automatically considered a flight risk.
>>
>> Northern Ireland.
>
> The UK doesn't have an extradition agreement with the USA? Since
> when?
>
> nj"buh?"m
>
>
I was wrong.
(Is that an AFCA first?)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/United_States_extradition_treaties_countries.PNG
or
J
Chris
Somehow or other he always knows when I'm replying to you. He appeared out
of nowhere when I pressed reply.
Bill Turlock
>
> On 1/10/2011 9:04 PM, N Jill Marsh wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:52:10 -0500, Jeff Green
> > <jeffin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/10/2011 7:53 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >>> BTW, which countries are considered not-so-bad to live in and do not
> >>> extradite fugatives to the USA? Any time someone convicted of crimes
> >>> that involve misallocating large sums of money, they should be
> >>> automatically considered a flight risk.
> >>
> >> Northern Ireland.
> >
> > The UK doesn't have an extradition agreement with the USA? Since
> > when?
> >
> > nj"buh?"m
> >
> >
>
> I was wrong.
>
> (Is that an AFCA first?)
What—that you were wrong? I dunno, you tell me.
That it's an AFC-A first? Hell know, I admit my ronggidty
phrekwently.
Bill Turlock
ha ha
Shawn Wilson
Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
landotter
Money laundering.
Any more questions from the willfully stupid?
Shawn Wilson
> > Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
>
> Money laundering.
he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
established organization for legal purposes. There is no criminal
enterprise here.
You might as well make it illegal to teach blacks to read, and call
those who do so 'criminals'.
> Any more questions from the willfully stupid?
That would make you, what, willfully fascist?
bobg
> In article
> <e66d61e9-5930-4252-81b6-5127d547e...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Delay gets three years actual time.
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/10/delay.sentencing/?hpt=T2
>
> > My schadenfreude levels are peaking...
>
> If and when he serves his time and is released, expected him to join the
> long line of right-wingers supporting prison reform.
>
> Funny how that group consists only of right-wingers who have done time.
>
> --
> D.F. Manno
One of that set impressed me - Chuck Colson has worked hard to
overturn state laws that prevent convicted felons from voting even
after their sentence has been served. Good on you for that, Chuck
Colson - maybe there's something to this "rehabilitation" thing after
all.
Lee Ayrton
> On Jan 12, 7:49 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
>>
>> Money laundering.
>
> he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
> established organization for legal purposes. There is no criminal
> enterprise here.
The state of Texas disagrees with you. I realize that this is offensive
to your superior intellect, but they're the Men With Guns And Badges.
[quote]==================================================
Prosecutors said DeLay conspired with two associates, John Colyandro and
Jim Ellis, to use his Texas-based PAC to send $190,000 in corporate money
to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee, or RNC.
The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under
Texas law, corporate money can't go directly to political campaigns.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/24/jury-convicts-delay-money-
laundering-trial/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay_campaign_finance_investigation
landotter
> On Jan 12, 7:49 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
>
> > Money laundering.
>
> he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
> established organization for legal purposes. There is no criminal
> enterprise here.
Evidence and conviction don't reflect your alternate reality.
>
> You might as well make it illegal to teach blacks to read, and call
> those who do so 'criminals'.
??? More conservative bizarro-think.
>
> > Any more questions from the willfully stupid?
>
> That would make you, what, willfully fascist?
Actually, your corporatist attitude is exactly the definition of proto-
facism.
What's funny about you guys is that you're all exactly the same type
of stupid--probably as you're fed the exact same disinformation.
Defending Delay. LMFAO
Shawn Wilson
> >> > Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
>
> >> Money laundering.
>
> > he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
> > established organization for legal purposes. There is no criminal
> > enterprise here.
>
> The state of Texas disagrees with you.
Are you illiterate? Let me refresh your memory-
"He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
for legal purposes"
Nothing in your citation addresses any of that.
Supreme law of the land or toilet paper, which? Pick ONE.
Shawn Wilson
> > > > Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
>
> > > Money laundering.
>
> > he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
> > established organization for legal purposes. There is no criminal
> > enterprise here.
>
> Evidence and conviction don't reflect your alternate reality.
My "alternate reality"? You mean the one where the US Constitution is
not toilet paper, that 'alternate reality'?
> > You might as well make it illegal to teach blacks to read, and call
> > those who do so 'criminals'.
>
> ??? More conservative bizarro-think.
Beliving in the 1st amendment is "conservative bizarro-think"???
> > > Any more questions from the willfully stupid?
>
> > That would make you, what, willfully fascist?
>
> Actually, your corporatist attitude is exactly the definition of proto-
> facism.
My belief that people shouldn't go to jail for actions that harm no
one and are constitutionally protected is "proto-fascism"? Orwellian
much?
Lee Ayrton
> On Jan 12, 3:35 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.nul> wrote:
>> > he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
>> > established organization for legal purposes. There is no criminal
>> > enterprise here.
>>
>> The state of Texas disagrees with you.
>
> Are you illiterate? Let me refresh your memory-
>
> "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> for legal purposes"
You can attempt to insult me all you wish, but that doesn't change the
fact that the State of Texas disagrees with your superior grasp of and
novel interpretation of the Law.
Hieronymus Agricola
<b16e92ad-1cf6-4fac...@j1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):
> "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> for legal purposes"
Illegally.
Lee Ayrton
Don't try to razzle-dazzle Shawn with facts, he's certain that he's right.
And he's the smartest man on Usenet.
dilbert firestorm
he ever extradited?
--
<---=ￜￜ-Dilbert Firestorm-ￜￜ=--->
Zizzle that Fire - it's Zizzle Time !!!!!!!
Shawn Wilson
> > "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> > for legal purposes"
>
> You can attempt to insult me all you wish, but that doesn't change the
> fact that the State of Texas disagrees with your superior grasp of and
> novel interpretation of the Law.
State of Texas is infallible now? The law is the law. The
Constitution is the highest US law.
Shawn Wilson
> > "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> > for legal purposes"
>
> Illegally.
Fascist much? There isn't a crime without a victim. You worse off?
David J. Martin
What with the activist Roberts court, he just might be right. Those
corporate civil rights could save the Hammer.
David
Hieronymus Agricola
(in article
<ab06fc4e-0d05-4062...@u3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>):
It's tautological: if there's a law against it, and someone does it, he's
violated the law.
This is true even if it's a bad law.
landotter
> On Jan 12, 7:19 pm, Hieronymus Agricola <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote:
>
> > > "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> > > for legal purposes"
>
> > Illegally.
>
> Fascist much?
You really should stop using that word until you learn what it means.
It's not a general purpose pejorative.
>There isn't a crime without a victim. You worse off?
Democracy is worse off since Delay put corporate interests and party
loyalty above the people and the law.
If you're so right--you really should fight a real fight to get Delay
off the hook. As it stands, you're just regurgitating crazy wingnut
talking points on Usenet.
Lee Ayrton
> On Jan 12, 7:05 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.nul> wrote:
>
>> > "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
>> > for legal purposes"
>>
>> You can attempt to insult me all you wish, but that doesn't change the
>> fact that the State of Texas disagrees with your superior grasp of and
>> novel interpretation of the Law.
>
> State of Texas is infallible now?
Did I write that in invisible ink someplace above?
> The law is the law. The Constitution
> is the highest US law.
You're funny. The Constitution isn't the law, it is the framework that
the law is built within.
Shawn Wilson
> >>> "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> >>> for legal purposes"
>
> >> Illegally.
>
> > Fascist much? There isn't a crime without a victim. You worse off?
>
> It's tautological: if there's a law against it, and someone does it, he's
> violated the law.
>
> This is true even if it's a bad law.
If there is a law saying there can't be a law...
I mean, really, either the Constitution means something or it's toilet
paper.
Shawn Wilson
> > > > "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> > > > for legal purposes"
>
> > > Illegally.
>
> > Fascist much?
>
> You really should stop using that word until you learn what it means.
> It's not a general purpose pejorative.
It is perfectly appropritate here. Besides, I know perfectly well
that you aren't the Presidente of the jack booted thugs of the
Spelling and Grammar police... because *I* AM...
> >There isn't a crime without a victim. You worse off?
>
> Democracy is worse off since Delay put corporate interests and party
> loyalty above the people and the law.
Uh, Constitution, toilet paper or not? Freedom of speech or not?
Obey an unconstitutional law or not? You need to answer.
Shawn Wilson
> >> > "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> >> > for legal purposes"
>
> >> You can attempt to insult me all you wish, but that doesn't change the
> >> fact that the State of Texas disagrees with your superior grasp of and
> >> novel interpretation of the Law.
>
> > State of Texas is infallible now?
>
> Did I write that in invisible ink someplace above?
Yes, you did.
> > The law is the law. The Constitution
> > is the highest US law.
>
> You're funny. The Constitution isn't the law, it is the framework that
> the law is built within.
No, it is actually the real live fucking law. Read it sometimes. It
says so right there, towards the end.
Jeff Green
Like the bible, it's interpretable. This is why we have the Vatican, er,
the Chief Rabbinate, um.... the US Supreme Court to make those decisions.
J
Shawn Wilson
> > I mean, really, either the Constitution means something or it's toilet
> > paper.
>
> Like the bible, it's interpretable. This is why we have the Vatican, er,
> the Chief Rabbinate, um.... the US Supreme Court to make those decisions.
The Constitution isn't written in Greek. It doesn't need
'interpretation'.
Jeff Green
Define, "general welfare"
J
Mac
These days it means "a pension, plus a job at some defense contractor"
too damned often, you ask me.
Paul Ciszek
In article <dfmanno-EA9021...@albasani.net>,
D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>If and when he serves his time and is released, expected him to join the
>long line of right-wingers supporting prison reform.
>
>Funny how that group consists only of right-wingers who have done time.
Once they've served their sentence, why would they care? Are they
planning on going back?
--
Please reply to: | "The anti-regulation business ethos is based on
pciszek at panix dot com | the charmingly naive notion that people will not
Autoreply is disabled | do unspeakable things for money." -Dana Carpender
Paul Ciszek
In article <6aa10cf1-bb0b-4922...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 12, 7:49 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
>>
>> Money laundering.
>
>he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
>established organization for legal purposes.
None of which is covered by the first amendment. Here is the first
amendment in its entirety:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that it says absolutely nothing about giving or acquiring money.
Activities involving money are covered by other parts of the
constitution, as well as a shitload of federal, state, and local
laws.
The first amendment says that speech, writing, religion, etc. cannot
in and of themselves constitute a prosecutable offense. That does
not mean that it is not possible to violate other laws while speaking,
writing, worshiping, etc. To use an example involving money, the
worship of Ishtar is protected by the first amendment, but building
a temple of Ishtar in which young ladies have sex with strangers in
exchange for money violates state law in most places.
> There is no criminal enterprise here.
The state of Texas says otherwise. As others have pointed out, the
state of Texas is *not* dominated by liberals or socialists, so you
can't blame this one on the usual scapegoats.
Les Albert
Ciszek) wrote:
> ...
>The first amendment says that speech, writing, religion, etc. cannot
>in and of themselves constitute a prosecutable offense. That does
>not mean that it is not possible to violate other laws while speaking,
>writing, worshiping, etc. To use an example involving money, the
>worship of Ishtar is protected by the first amendment, but building
>a temple of Ishtar in which young ladies have sex with strangers in
>exchange for money violates state law in most places.
> ...
Where can I get more information about the Ishtar religion?
Les
Paul Ciszek
In article <ud61j651emvs6d039...@4ax.com>,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar
Neil Gaiman wrote a subplot in his _Sandman_ series in which the
goddess Ishtar is found working as a stripper. It's the nearest
thing she can find in the modern world to the sort of worship she
requires.
Les Albert
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Where can I get more information about the Ishtar religion?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar
>Neil Gaiman wrote a subplot in his _Sandman_ series in which the
>goddess Ishtar is found working as a stripper. It's the nearest
>thing she can find in the modern world to the sort of worship she
>requires.
I read the wiki article; she sounds too dangerous. I will continue
looking.
Les
S. Checker
There was a documentary made a few years ago. Watch it and be
enlightened.
--
The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is
grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of
mountains, under torrents' beds, unerringly I rush! -- Moby Dick
Slow Motion Apocalypse
> In article <dfmanno-EA9021.21420210012...@albasani.net>,
>
> D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >If and when he serves his time and is released, expected him to join the
> >long line of right-wingers supporting prison reform.
>
> >Funny how that group consists only of right-wingers who have done time.
>
> Once they've served their sentence, why would they care? Are they
> planning on going back?
>
Who goes to prison just once?
Slow Motion Apocalypse
Then why is the joint on the dresser against the law?
Jeff Green
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to name two.
groo
Contact Lesmond, I think.
--
"I just really like talking about Farscape." - Abed, "Community"
D.F. Manno
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >If and when he serves his time and is released, expected him to join the
> >long line of right-wingers supporting prison reform.
> >
> >Funny how that group consists only of right-wingers who have done time.
>
> Once they've served their sentence, why would they care? Are they
> planning on going back?
Recidivism is widespread.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
Slow Motion Apocalypse
Things turned out exactly how they should have in that case.
Boron Elgar
OOO! Snap!
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:42:36 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The first amendment says that speech, writing, religion, etc. cannot
>> in and of themselves constitute a prosecutable offense. That does
>> not mean that it is not possible to violate other laws while speaking,
>> writing, worshiping, etc. To use an example involving money, the
>> worship of Ishtar is protected by the first amendment, but building
>> a temple of Ishtar in which young ladies have sex with strangers in
>> exchange for money violates state law in most places.
> Where can I get more information about the Ishtar religion?
I'm bothered by the "in exchange for money" bit. Back in my day the
Ishtar temple prostitutes didn't charge for their services.
Charles
groo
Had money even been invented back then?
Shawn Wilson
> >> > Why? What did he do that isn't covered by the first amendment?
>
> >> Money laundering.
>
> >he didn't launder money. He gave legally acquired money to a legally
> >established organization for legal purposes.
>
> None of which is covered by the first amendment. Here is the first
> amendment in its entirety:
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Note that it says absolutely nothing about giving or acquiring money.
Money is part and parcel of speech. Unless you are planning on
literally standing on a soapbox, you will have to pay people to get
your message out.
> Activities involving money are covered by other parts of the
> constitution, as well as a shitload of federal, state, and local
> laws.
And when the end is a man who has done no harm being convicted of a
crime, the law is wrong. We have a Constitution for a reason.
> The first amendment says that speech, writing, religion, etc. cannot
> in and of themselves constitute a prosecutable offense. That does
> not mean that it is not possible to violate other laws while speaking,
> writing, worshiping, etc. To use an example involving money, the
> worship of Ishtar is protected by the first amendment, but building
> a temple of Ishtar in which young ladies have sex with strangers in
> exchange for money violates state law in most places.
>
> > There is no criminal enterprise here.
>
> The state of Texas says otherwise. As others have pointed out, the
> state of Texas is *not* dominated by liberals or socialists, so you
> can't blame this one on the usual scapegoats.
The notoriously DEMOCRATIC (home and power base of LBJ) state of Texas
is not dominated by liberals?
You want to put money on the supreme Cort upholding his conviction?
Shawn Wilson
<slowmotionapocaly...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "He gave legally acquired money to a legally established organization
> > > > for legal purposes"
>
> > > Illegally.
>
> > Fascist much? There isn't a crime without a victim. You worse off?
>
> Then why is the joint on the dresser against the law?
It's not MY law. I didn't support it.
Lee Ayrton
Oh, Shawn, you're so reliable when it comes to ignoring inconvenient
data. It is that econ thing again, isn't it.
Texas was "notoriously" Democratic, for about a century. But the last
time a Democratic presidential candidate won the popular vote there was
Jimmy Carter in 1976. And those were Southern Democrats at the polls, at
the time about as different from Northern Democrats as Jack Russell
terriers are from American Staffordshire terriers. "Democrat" is not a
synonym for "liberal".
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?
year=1964&fips=48&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state
OR: <http://tinyurl.com/4avr5sn>
1964: LBJ wins Texas (you know, the place still reeling from having been
the place where Saint JFK was martyred) by a margin of 27%.
1968: HHH squeaks by in TX by a margin of 1%.
1972: RMN wins by 33%.
Well, sputter, what about Congressmen, huh?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/oct/25/live-election-
results-map-us-midterms
OR: <http://tinyurl.com/3xjpenh>
Oh, oops. Quite a lot of red there, too. 32 seats, 9 Democratic holds,
2 Republican wins.
Well, then, Governors, dammit, Governors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Texas
Oh. Only 2 of the past 6 TX governors have been Democrats.
Yeah. Tell us again about how Hitler /was too/ democratically elected.
Paul Ciszek
In article <igqj1l$edn$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I am not an anthropologist; for all I know, the schtick about every
Babylonian woman having to sit in the temple of Ishtar until a stranger
paid money to have sex with her (which the priests of the temple got to
keep, natch) before she was allowed to marry could have been the
invention of a single writer, whom other writers have copied. But
it turns up in a lot of places.
Vague Bible memory here: Didn't some guy in Genesis get in trouble
because he left something of value as collateral with what he thought
was a temple prostitute, only to find when he tried to retrieve it
that there were no sanctioned temple prostitutes operating in that town?