Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on December 20, 2002, 10:05:39 AM
-
take a lesson dumbacrats....
Lott to Step Down as Senate Republican Leader (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20021220/ts_nm/politics_lott_dc)
-
Like Nixon did and Clinton should have, something you'll never or at least very rarely see from the left.
-
Nixon DID step down.
Best thing Lott could have done. The Dems were hoping he'd stick around so they could continue to play the only hand they have: race. Lott was just a Washington insider, not popular with the Republican party in general. Shooting himself in the foot was just more proof that he wasn't fit to lead.
ra
-
Looks more to me like he got purged for divulging secret party agenda.
-
Nixon would have been impeached and convicted...
Clinton was found Not-guilty.
bummer huh?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nixon would have been impeached and convicted...
Clinton was found Not-guilty.
bummer huh?
Clinton was impeached in the House, Midnight. 2nd one in history.
-
Clinton was found Not-guilty.
Then why was he impeached?
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Looks more to me like he got purged for divulging secret party agenda.
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/gm/2002/gm021213.gif)
Yeah, there's SUCH a difference.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nixon would have been impeached and convicted...
Clinton was found Not-guilty.
bummer huh?
Nice spin, Nixon wasn't impeached but "would" have been. Clinton wasn't impeached but was. You're making my point for me.
-
Impeachment is akin to indictment... it is followed by a trial in the Senate.
Clinton was impeached because the house felt there was sufficient evidence to bring him to trial. He was found not-guilty in the trial.
Nixon resigned before the impeachment process could begin. Even his own party had turned against him and it was a forgone conclusion that he would be convicted as well as impeached.
-
Originally posted by ra
Then why was he impeached?
Impeachment does not equal conviction.
-
MT
you can't be so blind as not to see the difference btwn the reps & dems honor system .... who was the rep who resigned when the dem backer porno producer hustler mag L Flynt threaten to drag out the dirt on his infidelity? what did our "fearless" leader do? drag the the country through the gutter with him...
maybe it's brain washed instead of blind, but the would require "something" to be "washed" so it must be blind....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Impeachment does not equal conviction.
Good point, Clinton was then impeached.
-
Clinton was indeed found to be guilty of lying under oath by a federal judge, which why impeachment process was initiated. But you guys know this, you're just trolling.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
MT
you can't be so blind as not to see the difference btwn the reps & dems honor system .... who was the rep who resigned when the dem backer porno producer hustler mag L Flynt threaten to drag out the dirt on his infidelity? what did our "fearless" leader do? drag the the country through the gutter with him...
maybe it's brain washed instead of blind, but the would require "something" to be "washed" so it must be blind....
Woot!
That was funny.. Mr. Party line, whatever the Republidorks do is right, I don't care who runs against them.
I looked back at my post. Did you see anything untrue in there?
Here's a clue for you:
Clinton was NOT the antiChrist and GWB is not Christ....
"Helloooo McFly!!!"
-
why are the Republicans held to a higher standard than the dumbacrats by the media, the public and their own party?
hmm?
-
Good Question Eagler, I vote third party, to hell with both parties.
Karaya2
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Good Question Eagler, I vote third party, to hell with both parties.
Karaya2
I do one better, I vote the ISSUES, not the party (Shh, I have voted for a Democrat before!)
-
And Lott really had a choice in the matter? He didn't seem all that interested a day or so ago. It's really easy to do the right thing when even your own party is chomping at the bit to get you removed. What a hero.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
And Lott really had a choice in the matter? He didn't seem all that interested a day or so ago. It's really easy to do the right thing when even your own party is chomping at the bit to get you removed. What a hero.
Charon
Lott's no hero, the Republican party is.
-
Lott's no hero, the Republican party is.
How so Iron? They sure waited long enough to see which way the wind was blowing (and how weak Lott would become) before a few individuals led the righteous charge for self-benefit. But that's right, there really is a difference between the two parties and their respective politicians beyond the marketing plan. Might as well debate Ford or Chevy, The Rock or Hulk Hogan.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
How so Iron? They sure waited long enough to see which way the wind was blowing (and how weak Lott would become) before a few individuals led the righteous charge for self-benefit. But that's right, there really is a difference between the two parties and their respective politicians beyond the marketing plan. Might as well debate Ford or Chevy, The Rock or Hulk Hogan.
Charon
Unlike the democrats who in the face of overwhelming evidence undyingly defended Clinton's right to remain in office despite criminal abuse of power, perjury and possibly treason (likely imo).
-
They sure waited long enough to see which way the wind was blowing
And that's all this whole thing was, wind. Lott had to go because he contributes little to the success of his party as a whole, and this hot air explosion he released made him a liablility. All professional politicians should have their careers cut short, one way or another. The country would be better off without them.
ra
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Lott's no hero, the Republican party is.
It's hardly heroic to cut your loses before they grow to critical mass. Smart maybe, but not heroic.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
And what of Sen. Byrd and his "ni#$er" language in the senate a couple years ago? Wha? No press coverage? Dang! ;)
Didn't see Byrd stepping down, nor did I see the Dems ask for him to step down.
Toads cartoon hit home so accurately, it looks like it flew at super sonic speed right over the head of many in this thread. :D
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It's hardly heroic to cut your loses before they grow to critical mass. Smart maybe, but not heroic.
-- Todd/Leviathn
As someone said previously, the lines are already clearly drawn. What losses?
-
As a sidenote:
In Berkeley, CA, the newly elected mayor finally admitted to stealing 1000+ copies (from the copystands) of the UC Berekeley newspaper and throwing them into the trash. All because the paper endorsed the other candidate. Guess he didn't want anybody to see the endorsements.
Since there are only 2 parties in Berkeley (Left and Extreme Left - oops, I guess we call them Progressives ), he is forgiven for his er, sins. No charges, no resignation, no reprimand etc....
Guess what would've happened if the person was politically to the center or (gasp), to the right?
-
Rip, was Byrd the leader of his party? Is Lott resigning from the Senate? Is there even a national outcry from him to retire from the Senate in the media or otherwise? I'm sure this will be an issue in his state, but then that's between him and his electorate, the same with Byrd. Byrds remarks were hardly overlooked, it's just that even though he is a powerful Senator, there are a lot of powerful Senators. There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen, period. However, there are only a few politicians who represent their parties at the national level and Lott is one of those.
As for Clinton, I'm sure the Democrats would have hung him out to dry if they felt he was more of a liabilty to the party (and their own chances at reelection). But the public wasn't all that outraged. Much of the public saw both the republican attack on his sexual exploits and his comical defense as politics as usual (as opposed to, say treason), and somewhat disagreeable as a whole. And, there was no real political opportunity to be readily gained fighting Clinton within the party. Had that been different, then I'm sure the Democrats would have been just as nobel.
Charon
-
"Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the chamber's No. 3, was considering challenging Frist, party sources said, but a senior Republican aide said: "Rick Santorum is a smart guy. He can count. He will soon realize he doesn't have the votes." "
ROFL - good ol' Ricky is at it again. :cool:
-
Guess what would've happened if the person was politically to the center or (gasp), to the right?
He wouldn't have been elected in the first place? What if Napoleon had a B-52 at the battle of Waterloo?
Charon
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Unlike the democrats who in the face of overwhelming evidence undyingly defended Clinton's right to remain in office despite criminal abuse of power, perjury and possibly treason (likely imo).
So you are saying that the Republicans sell out their own and the Democrats have more loyalty? ;)
Spin spin spin. :D
-
BTW, what's the deal with Frist? I know he's a buddy of Bush, and fairly popular personally in the Senate, but he's only been around since the mid-1990s. What pushed him to the top of the list?
Charon
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nixon would have been impeached and convicted...
Clinton was found Not-guilty.
bummer huh?
Riiight... so what your saying the Republican majority Senate decided not to hand the shaft to Clinton and put an end to the affair?
Hmmmm... maybe they should have? Oh wait, maybe they had whats best for the country in mind?
What Lott said was not exactly the best choice of words. He was simply trying to say a good thing about an old man. What the Democlods did was jump at the chance to take those words out of context pump it for thier own gain.
While I'm at it... I have a question concerning Polesi. Why didn't you Demunists just go out and find a relic from the polituro to lead the House minority? lol
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So you are saying that the Republicans sell out their own and the Democrats have more loyalty? ;)
Spin spin spin. :D
I thought we were talking about which party puts the interests of the country first, USA, not your country. Obviously not the dems.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
As someone said previously, the lines are already clearly drawn. What losses?
Do you actually believe that Lott wasn't hurting the 2004 Republican congressional ticket? The sooner they got rid of him the better. Nothing heroic about it... he became dead weight and they cut him loose before he dragged down the party.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by MrBodi
As a sidenote:
In Berkeley, CA, the newly elected mayor finally admitted to stealing 1000+ copies (from the copystands) of the UC Berekeley newspaper and throwing them into the trash. ---snip--- Guess what would've happened if the person was politically to the center or (gasp), to the right?
How exactly do you steal something that is free?
Tumor - Riiight... so what your saying the Republican majority Senate decided not to hand the shaft to Clinton and put an end to the affair?
Hmmmm... maybe they should have? Oh wait, maybe they had whats best for the country in mind?
Soooo what you are saying is.......
Even with sufficient evidence to convict, the Repulicraps foresook their duties to the Constitution and the Law and decided to do "what is best for the Country" instead of the "right thing".
Sounds like you're applauding them for moral bankruptcy.
-
Even with sufficient evidence to convict, the Repulicraps foresook their duties to the Constitution and the Law and decided to do "what is best for the Country" instead of the "right thing".
The House Republicans voted for impeachment, but the spineless Senate Republicans let the slimey weasel go. Who was their leader? I can't remember his name now...
-
The way I see it:
1. Lott was receiving pressure from the party to step down, probably because he would be a liability to the party. While this is true, it speaks highly of Lott that he accepted his responsibility for the words and did what he needed to do. It took him two weeks... so? He tried the apology route, it didn't work, so he must make amends in the only way possible- step down from leadership. Sorry, I'm finding it difficult to find fault with this in any way.
2. The radical faction of the Democratic party is making hay out of this, and it is indeed becoming a central plank for 2004. To ignore this fact is foolish for the Republican party.
3. The Democratic party and supporters have there own Trent Lotts, but they can never be called on it. It's a double standard, and everyone knows it. Sure, they are good at rationalizing away why their crap doesn't stink, but they never seem to make that step that shows they accept responsibility for their actions. They DO make sad faces and bite their lips, but they hang on. And the public loves them for it.
4. It doesn't matter. Lott did something stupid that caused an uproar. His actions were extremely impolitic, and he endangered the future of the Republican initiatives for the next several years. That is unforgiveable, just as such an error in corporate America would result in demotion or termination. The party IS holding Lott accountable, and it should. Spin it any way you like, but the Reps are getting tarred for doing the right thing.
Me, I do my job even if the people around me won't. I don't spend my time worrying about what they do or don't do, nor do I listen one second to what they have to say about my work when I know they don't live up to the same standards they criticize me about. In the same way, the Dems should be very quiet right now. Either that, or their versions of Trent Lott should start making public apologies and stepping back from positions of power. I won't hold my breath, though.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How exactly do you steal something that is free?
By taking more than your share. Isn't that obvious?
-
I will start this reply by saying that I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I think both parties are full of it on so many issues it isn’t worth getting into on a Game message board. I will say this. If Lott were not the moron that he is, he would not have said what he did. In the second place, Southerners created the very problems that he said would have been avoided if what’s his name would have won following WW2. They brought the slaves to this country. I never heard of any war trials concerning that very simple fact after the Civil War. The biggest mistake this country made following that war was the compromise that was reached concerning Africans. The choices presented were to deport them all to Africa at the expense of the south, Or to grant them complete equal rights. The decision was for equal but separate. We have the southern landowners and clergy to thank for this. Then known as the Democratic Party. When Kennedy was elected to the presidency and began implementing his policies on equal rights in the south, all those Southern Democrats suddenly became Republicans to include Ronald Reagan.
On that note I will leave you with a very old Roman proverb that reflects on almost all aspects of life. Slaves make cruel masters.
-
Vote on the issues. Blindly following is a sign of mental surrender and sheep behaviour.
If you do, sometimes you'd vote for one part, another times for the other. Much harder to dumbocrat and ratpublican ALL fediddleing issues.
This stereotyping by intelligent people is saddening.
-
Originally posted by TWOLF
I will start this reply by saying that I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I think both parties are full of it on so many issues it isn’t worth getting into on a Game message board. I will say this. If Lott were not the moron that he is, he would not have said what he did. In the second place, Southerners created the very problems that he said would have been avoided if what’s his name would have won following WW2. They brought the slaves to this country. I never heard of any war trials concerning that very simple fact after the Civil War. The biggest mistake this country made following that war was the compromise that was reached concerning Africans. The choices presented were to deport them all to Africa at the expense of the south, Or to grant them complete equal rights. The decision was for equal but separate. We have the southern landowners and clergy to thank for this. Then known as the Democratic Party. When Kennedy was elected to the presidency and began implementing his policies on equal rights in the south, all those Southern Democrats suddenly became Republicans to include Ronald Reagan.
On that note I will leave you with a very old Roman proverb that reflects on almost all aspects of life. Slaves make cruel masters.
LOL! Yet another fine example of our public education system.
-
(http://www.boomspeed.com/vertebrae/unity.jpg)
-
Lott has the worst case of helmet head hair I have ever seen I wonder if he and Jimmy Johnson use the same barber.
Sorry trying to change the subject God Bless...
-
yawn , racist boy should stay in congress. it will fix the hair breath wins finnaly . keeping a confirmed racist in congress is perfect for the republican party. like runing Bob Dole for president.
shows how the rich mans machine works.
-
Yawn. Just for perspective.
// "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." — Robert Byrd in letter to Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel Green of Atlanta, April 8, 1946.
"keeping a confirmed racist in congress is perfect for the republican party."
Check 6!
:D
-
Sorry Toad, Byrd has the DNC stamped "Get out of Jail Free" card. It's obviously an irrelevant point.
-
Originally posted by Charon
What if Napoleon had a B-52 at the battle of Waterloo?
Charon
It wouldn't have made any difference.
He did not have the petroleum infrasructure for fuel, and nobody was a pilot. ;)
-
napolean would have held the B-52 in reserve until he had already lost the battle
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yawn. Just for perspective.
"keeping a confirmed racist in congress is perfect for the republican party."
Check 6!
:D
Here's a little more fuel for the fire.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp
-
Sorry to disappoint you. Apparently you are a wiser, and far more educated man then I. But I must point out that I never went to a public school. But I do have a degree in history. It's a shame that folks forget first causes to stay in line with political agendas. Proof that the fall of Rome is eminent. I had a much longer post planned but after reading some of the garbage being thrown around here, I can see it would be a waste.
-
I agree, Byrd should step down as Majority leader too.
-
I'm just wondering how Byrd was ever elected in the first place, oh wait, it's that double standard thing. :rolleyes:
-
All true MT, but... what are the Democrats doing now? They are saying now perhaps the GOP will address their racist underpinnings....
huh?!
Does this mean that since the majority leader said something stupid and was forced by his party to step down the entire party is rife with racism? That seems to be the suggestion. If that's true, it most certainly is relevant the Dems have people like Byrd onboard, and people like Jackson and Sharpton as major power brokers. Heck, even Farrakhan is embraced by members of the Democratic party, so... are Democrats racist?
You know the answer.
-
Some dems are racists.
Some reps are racists.
All racists are idiots.
I think we are on the same page in this thread Kieran.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Some dems are racists.
Some reps are racists.
All racists are idiots.
I think we are on the same page in this thread Kieran.
No doubt, but then the subject of the thread was about Republicans owning up to and policing their own party, a very foreign idea to Democrats.
-
or a calculated act that really means nothing hoping to hold on to power just like the southern aristocracy always has done.
thank god they are republicans mostly now.