Ex–Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas) has discovered a truly marvelous proof of a conspiracy at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which he says is behind the indictment against him. Unfortunately, it will not fit in the margins of this CNN interview.
DeLay's Last Theorem
Comments to "DeLay's Last Theorem":
Brian Courts | September 30, 2005, 1:57pm | #
Heh. Excellent post Julian. But does that mean that we will find out he really is right in about 350 years?drf | September 30, 2005, 2:08pm | #
heh heh heh.vast left wing consipracy... :)
you know, John Kerry could contact ol' Tommy boy about botox.....
mk | September 30, 2005, 2:11pm | #
I always thought that the right time to provide evidence backing up a claim was at the time that the claim is made.I guess that's why I'm not a politician.
I assume his evidence is going to come around the same time as the irrefutable proof of their successful human cloning that was going to come from that crazy cult a couple years ago.
Wasn't the DNA proof of Thomas Jefferson diddling Sally Hemmings delayed for "the right time"?
Ruthless: That "proof" was only that a male related to Thomas Jefferson had children with Hemmings. That it was TJ himself is only an assumption, and supposedly he had a brother known for such things.
Ruthless | September 30, 2005, 3:07pm | #
PapayaSF,Whatever. The timing could be similar is what I'm saying.
I thought Reasonoids were *against* controls on political contributions and campaign financing...
Paul W | September 30, 2005, 3:58pm | #
a) Yes, us "Reasonoids" all think in perfect lockstep, and wait to determine our own opinions until we find out what it should be from our own version of the Little Red Book.b) You can be "against" something and still deride someone as a nutbag for claiming a vast conspiracy against him. If I think my neighbor is nuts for thinking that George Bush is personally trying to kill him, that doesn't mean I am "in favor" of George Bush.
joe | September 30, 2005, 4:04pm | #
The Reasonoids seem to pretty solidly against Prohibition and the income tax, as well.Yet they seem pretty satisfied with Al Capone's conviction.
Hypocrites, every single one of them.
And I bet they'd call the fire department, too! And call the cops if they are mugged, even if they are against random searches by the police for drugs!
Eric the .5b | September 30, 2005, 5:29pm | #
Joe:Sorry, I think I'm outside the event horizon of your sarcasm. Clue me in on who you're snarking? :)
joe | September 30, 2005, 5:47pm | #
Eric,"Confused," who can't seem to understand why libertarians would object to someone who organized a criminal conspiracy, despite their opposition to the behavior in question being criminalized.
R C Dean | September 30, 2005, 5:54pm | #
Whatever.Like accusing someone of raping a slave based on evidence showing, at best, that someone in his kin group did so is, you know, perfectly OK.
Less Confused | September 30, 2005, 6:09pm | #
So let's say for the sake of killing more time that DeLay was indicted for acquiring a large stash of oxycontin for his chronic pain. Would this forum be sympathetic? Doubt it.Tom Crick | September 30, 2005, 6:38pm | #
"I thought Reasonoids were *against* controls on political contributions and campaign financing..."Yeah, but isn't it funny when politicians get all wacky? ; )
*circus music*
...Their eyes get real big, and they start making wild accusations! Yyyeeeee--haAAaaa!
Ruthless | September 30, 2005, 9:05pm | #
"Whatever.Like accusing someone of raping a slave based on evidence showing, at best, that someone in his kin group did so is, you know, perfectly OK."
Sorry, RC, but I, son o' the South, have done found Thomas guilty/horny/fiddle/diddle.
Let's move along.
Aaron Burr was a sterling individual too. How about that? His daughter, Theodosia, happened to be on a ship that sank off the coast of NC in 1813. With her sank many letters backing up what I'm saying.
Jefferson smeared Burr so badly it persists until now.
Come to think of it, in this age of pajama truth-seekers, maybe we can finally get history straight.
(Vestal Voigins:
Do not get thy hopes up.)
Is a "voigin" some from New Jersey who doesn't eat animal products?
Ruthless One O'Joisey | September 30, 2005, 9:57pm | #
"Is a "voigin" some from New Jersey who doesn't eat animal products?"You're warm, joe.
daddy doo doo | October 1, 2005, 5:22am | #
ruthless, either your posts never really make sense, or I never really understand themdhex | October 1, 2005, 8:07am | #
voigins certainly don't eat meat."So let's say for the sake of killing more time that DeLay was indicted for acquiring a large stash of oxycontin for his chronic pain. Would this forum be sympathetic?"
a similar situation came up with rush's pill-poppin' ways.
if a drugwarrior gets caught in their own net, no matter how ridiculous the net is, it's hard not to find some measure of satisfaction with that outcome.
rob | October 1, 2005, 11:38am | #
"You can be "against" something and still deride someone as a nutbag for claiming a vast conspiracy against him. If I think my neighbor is nuts for thinking that George Bush is personally trying to kill him, that doesn't mean I am "in favor" of George Bush."Exactly. But when I say this about people with sweeping conspiracy claims, some people get all bent out of shape...
Ruthless | October 1, 2005, 8:01pm | #
"ruthless, either your posts never really make sense, or I never really understand them"daddy doo doo,
Don't be hard on yourself. I'm the T. S. Elliott of H&R... either him or Turds Stuckel...
Eric the .5b | October 3, 2005, 2:15pm | #
Joe - thanks.