aparisi2274
Member
deadlifter said:
Ummm, as far as I know, Clinton was never impeached. He should have been, but he never was.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official RNC topic 2.
- Thread starter Wellington
- Start date
- Status
Ummm, as far as I know, Clinton was never impeached. He should have been, but he never was.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
aparisi2274 said:Ummm, as far as I know, Clinton was never impeached. He should have been, but he never was.
He was impeached.
PotatoeMasher
Member
Slurpy said:
I readily admit:
Musical performances: Advantage Democrats.
Bipartisanship in action here folks...
Catchpenny
Member
Boring speech to me, especially the first half of it. The same old rhetoric from Bush, the same plan of cutting taxes, spending more money and saying to hell with the deficit. Remember when this was the party of fiscal responsibility?
His jabs at Kerry were lame and delivered without much vigor. Also, I'd still like to know what "the soft bigotry of low expectations" actually MEANS. What a bullshit, politically manufactured phrase that is.
Showing some humility at the end with the self-depreciating humor was probably the best part of his speech...might make him seem more confident than arrogant. But I was flipping to the Daily Show by then. Overall it was a pretty ho-hum speech, and he really didn't seem very into it at all. The crowd's loudest moments (other than the intro and conclusion) were when protesters were being removed from the building.
His jabs at Kerry were lame and delivered without much vigor. Also, I'd still like to know what "the soft bigotry of low expectations" actually MEANS. What a bullshit, politically manufactured phrase that is.
Showing some humility at the end with the self-depreciating humor was probably the best part of his speech...might make him seem more confident than arrogant. But I was flipping to the Daily Show by then. Overall it was a pretty ho-hum speech, and he really didn't seem very into it at all. The crowd's loudest moments (other than the intro and conclusion) were when protesters were being removed from the building.
aparisi2274
Member
JC10001 said:
Well my bad then, shows how much I care about a Democrat.
aparisi2274
Member
Matt said:
Hehe you are an atheist, but in your first line, you are telling god how much you hate this man. The very same god, you dont believe in.
I just found that funny. No offense to you or anything. Just got a chuckle from it.
PotatoeMasher
Member
gag... this children circle country singing is killing me... no more cspan tonight
aparisi2274 said:
Actually, it shows how little you know about the political process. Impeachment is defined as "A calling to account; arraignment; especially, of a public officer for maladministration."
EDIT: ARGH, beaten by two people. These Republican threads move way too fast.
aparisi2274
Member
Matt said:
Why because I didnt know some shithole president who was using the oval office to get hummers was impeached, and his boring ass VP had to save his ass. FUCK HIM. And I will participate in this discussion as much as I want. If you dont like, then to F'in bad.
xsarien said:
Well, I wasn't going to, actually. ;P I didn't think it was important enough for a discussion, and quite off-topic to this thread, so I just figured I'd lazily make a statement of my difference of opinion
Well, I'm hardly a Bush supporter.
Well, I'd say World War II, and the years leading up to it, were also steeped in ideology. Communism, fascism, nazism, and democracy. I'd certainly agree that WWII and today's situation are completely different, and that comparisons between the two are ridiculous (that includes BUSH = HITLER
). First of all, it's always hard to accurately gauge the scope of world events while you're living them. Time is required for perspective. So I feel it is far too premature to say that the "War on Terror" is greater in scope than WWII.I will say this though. WWII affected the entire planet. No life was left untouched by the war. Two continents were completely embroiled in total war, another saw some campaigning. I do not feel, at this moment, that the current ideological conflict has been as widespread.
Although it is too simple to look at body counts, I think it is still telling. I don't know the current best estimates for total deaths during the war period, though I'm sure I could look it up, but I'm certain it's in the 40-60 million range all told. How many people have died from terrorist attacks in the past 6 years? Twenty Thousand? Throw in all casualties from the Iraw War, and we're still probably under seventy-five thousand casualties. A widespread ideological conflict or not, 60 million deaths beats the crap out of 75 000 as far as "scope" is concerned.
But again, I think this is an argument that needs another 10 years for any definitive comparison.
A.) I would say that virtually every single President in the history of the country had an affair while in office.aparisi2274 said:
B.) It is your right to participate in this discussion, and I never said otherwise. Hell, I want you to. Its good to see all sides of an issue. But that doesnt make your political opinions any more unlearned.
aparisi2274
Member
Minotauro said:
Sure, I admit, I never had a clear definition of the word "impeach" but technically I was never wrong when I said he was never impeached. As far as I knew, when someone was impeached they were made to leave office. So I looked it up, and here is the definition:
Main Entry: 1im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness>
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct
So as you can see entry #3 says that the word could also mean that someone was removed from office, and that was what I was basing my interpretation of the word off of.
aparisi2274
Member
Matt said:
So every president??? So FDR was able to get it on while in a wheelchair? Or Fatty Teddy Roosevelt? Or Reagan? Or Truman? Or Hoover? Or William Henry Harrison, who was in office for less than a month. or Grant? or Fillmore?
Do you still want to say every single president???????
aparisi2274
Member
impirius said:
Heheh I wonder what kind of bandwith Lincoln or Fillmore had back then. I guess they were on AOL -56
PotatoeMasher
Member
Matt said:
W. T. F.?!??!?
George W. Bush - No
Bill Clinton - Yes
George HW Bush - No
Ronald Reagan - No
Jimmy Carter - No
Gerald Ford - No
Dick Nixon - who knows!
Do you really believe what you just said? That's messed up, man! Even if I'm wrong and HW was banging around on Bar, you can't tell me your statement makes any sense... There are a few in history who we know about, but to assert that virtually every one has had an affair--I mean, wtf?
aparisi2274 said:
Carrier pigeon, which actually has a measured bandwith of 2.27Mbps:
http://www.notes.co.il/benbasat/5240.asp
That's faster than the first pigeon experiment, which didn't use memory cards, but printouts of binary code.
aparisi2274
Member
Matt said:
Dude get me the link, or an article on where it says FDR had an affair while in office. Yeah I listed 8 presidents, and the reason i did that is because I wasnt around for all 43 presidents. Just from 38 on. So I unlike you, who must be over 300 years old, cant say that every president has had an affair while in office.
Boogie said:
Actually I meant a fair number would be rather significantly in the opposite direction. Terrorism did not begin in the 90s, and the number of lives it has taken is probably impossible to calculate because, as the person you were responding to said, it is a tactic, not a movement. It's like holding a campaign against the use of calvary, or machine guns.
I'm pretty sure that's what they meant about scope.
aparisi2274 said:
Unless you knew any of them personally, I don't think whether or not you were alive for their terms matters as to your knowledge of their personal lives.
Okay enough of the Clinton shit. Why did you like or not like this speech by Bush?
I didn't like it because it was more of the same. He promised more tax cuts with a record deficit, said no child left behind was working and it isn't, and spewed stupid idealistic shit about the middle east that is not true. Bush and his administration just cannot tell the truth and that's why people dispise them.
I didn't like it because it was more of the same. He promised more tax cuts with a record deficit, said no child left behind was working and it isn't, and spewed stupid idealistic shit about the middle east that is not true. Bush and his administration just cannot tell the truth and that's why people dispise them.
maharg said:
Good point, though I don't think I ever said (and I certainly don't actually think) that the current conflict is most accurately described as a "War on Terror" so much as it is turning into an ideological conflict of how the West responds to Islamic extremism.
I guess I simply prefer to define scope as the number of lives an event or conflict touches, and how much it shapes world events and politics.
PotatoeMasher
Member
maharg said:
We're all dumber for having read that
http://www.nps.gov/elro/glossary/mercer-lucy.htmaparisi2274 said:
It's the first thing I found. FDR had an affair with Lucy Page Mercer Rutherfurd for many, many years, including during his Presidency.
PotatoeMasher
Member
deadlifter said:
He outlined ideas that I fully support--cleaning up the tax code, new approaches to social security (choice), a society of ownership...
He was human, poked a little fun at his opponent and himself--provided some commentary on the decisions he's had to make over the last four years...
I didn't feel like he held back (something politicians are pressured to do)--speaking against abortion, gay marriage...
And it's not even that I agree with his views on gay marriage (I prefer to let the states choose via a referendum), it's just that he's not afraid to lay his views out...
deadlifter said:
Pretty much. All bullshit. Unlike most people ive looked at researched the results the policies he's bragged about. They're a failure. That's a fact. Don't have much more to say. Seemed like ive heard every line before.
The 'liberation of the Middle-East' scared me. I guess it was expected. God help us. I hope Americans do the right thing.
Warm Machine
Member
A man with power and money is always going to be approached by women. It is like a married RockStar or Athelete. Do you think they just say no to all the scattered ass around them? Men are men presidents or not. Hell, your next door neighbor may be having an affair and you'd never know about it let alone the leader of a country.
So we're talking about which presidents have screwed around in office rather than Bush's plan to greatly simplify/eradicate the tax code?
Ok.
Now answer this, which has the better chance of passing: Bush's plan to get rid of income tax; or Kerry's plan for National Health Care.
I say since Clinton already failed at NHC, income tax is obviously more likely to happen. God I'd kill for a flat tax. With the elimination of taxes on coorporations studies show that after the shakedown goods/services would be basically the same price as they are now, except you get your full check to invest. Combined with tax refunds for the "necessities of life", I don't see a downside no matter what tax bracket you are in.
It's funny that poor/minorities think the Democratic party is the one that looks out for them, when the Republican party is the one who tries to empower them to live and thrive. I think it's because they want to be taken care of. This country would be a lot better if everyone had some semblance of personal responsibility.
Go ahead and rip me to shreds.
Ok.
Now answer this, which has the better chance of passing: Bush's plan to get rid of income tax; or Kerry's plan for National Health Care.
I say since Clinton already failed at NHC, income tax is obviously more likely to happen. God I'd kill for a flat tax. With the elimination of taxes on coorporations studies show that after the shakedown goods/services would be basically the same price as they are now, except you get your full check to invest. Combined with tax refunds for the "necessities of life", I don't see a downside no matter what tax bracket you are in.
It's funny that poor/minorities think the Democratic party is the one that looks out for them, when the Republican party is the one who tries to empower them to live and thrive. I think it's because they want to be taken care of. This country would be a lot better if everyone had some semblance of personal responsibility.
Go ahead and rip me to shreds.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Really. I've wondered why they haven't put forth good effort in debunking things like that oft-repeated $87 billion anecdote, and all I can figure is that it will be much more effective when done live to a much larger audience right in front of Bush, after having let the Republicans blow the issue up. *shrug*Zero said:
DJ_Tet said:
Well... I disagree.
Alcibiades
Member
I disagree that the Republican party is going to be giving poor/minorities more handouts (although they've been very generous in the State of Texas, no doubt, just as much as the Democrats),
But, I agree with this:
"This country would be a lot better if everyone had some semblance of personal responsibility."
that said, there are some people that live in conditions where even being responsible is not enough. mental health and pyschological well-being affect many homeless and some poorer neighborhoods.
Schools are the key to fighting poverty, but unfortunately, the Democrats only proposal is more spending, which actually hasn't worked in the past and just resulted in corrupt school districts with money-wasting structures...
But, I agree with this:
"This country would be a lot better if everyone had some semblance of personal responsibility."
that said, there are some people that live in conditions where even being responsible is not enough. mental health and pyschological well-being affect many homeless and some poorer neighborhoods.
Schools are the key to fighting poverty, but unfortunately, the Democrats only proposal is more spending, which actually hasn't worked in the past and just resulted in corrupt school districts with money-wasting structures...
Catchpenny
Member
CNN has their pundit scorecards up...I'm amused to see that Bill Schneider actually rated the speech higher than Tucker Carlson, who gave it a B overall. Mr. Bowtie doesn't seem too happy with the president these days.
Alcibiades
Member
link?Killthee said:To anyone who cares, Apple has the speeches on their store and just like the DNC ones they're free
I can't find them :/
do they still have the Democratic ones?
DJ_Tet said:
Sure.
One study after another show that blacks and hispanics get worse medical coverage, are less likely to be hired for a job if they have the same qualifications, and are less likely to get fair home, car and business loans than whites, regardless of location, education, or income. They are more likely to be disciplined for "behavioral problems" in schools, less likely to be put in advanced classes, and more likely to be trapped in "special" classes. Despite studies showing that white men were most likely to traffic drugs through airports, the FAA's official policy until 9/11 was to target black women for drug searches, the idea being that they would be forced to smuggle drugs by their black boyfriends. Republicans have worked to block any legislation that addressed any of these issues. For years, republicans fought against studies of race discrimination among our police, even though every independent study showed widespread discrimination even among police. Republicans were the quick to proclaim that cab drivers were free to discriminate on the basis of race if they felt like it.
The current administration has made it a point to fight against affirmative action in all of it's forms. But, when the NHA found that minorities faced routine discrimination in health care, this administration actually fought to cover it up. The reason? They said they wanted to emphasize the positive - a small change in a large disparity of life expectancy between blacks, hispanic, and whites.
George Bush himself was happy to speak at Bob Jones University, well known for it's segregationist rules. When asked about flying southern flags that were specifically designed to protest integration, he referred to "States' Rights" a long-time code word for discrimination. Newt Gingrich worked to reduce the federal programs that have worked against discrimination. Reagan slammed "welfare queens", and was apologetic about South Africa's apartheid policies.
Meanwhile, Gore pledged that his first act as president would be to outlaw discrimination in law enforcement. Bill Clinton went out of his way to embrace minorities.
And when democrats find an intelligent, articulate man like Obama, republicans counter with a jackass like Keyes, and then claim that democrats play the race card.
Look, we're not stupid, we know that the democrats, to some point, take us for granted. But republicans can't even be bothered to speak to us. They refuse to address discrimination, they fill their speeches with words that evoke Jim Crow, and then they act like they don't know why black people won't vote for them. Look, it doesn't matter if Bush knew that "state's rights" was a racist term or not. Either way, he's an idiot. If republicans want the black vote, they're going to have to work long and hard to replace the bridges that they've burned, and so far, they haven't even bought the lumber.
("Personal responsibility" my ass)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked